by Marissa Nyeverko, Law Clerk, Jardine, Logan & O’Brien, P.L.L.P.
On April 17, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court made a pivotal ruling in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, No. 22-193. The Court held that “an employee challenging a job transfer under Title VII must show that the transfer brought about some harm with respect to an identifiable term or condition of employment, but that harm need not be significant.” This decision marks a substantial departure from the previous requirement, in place for nearly three decades, that employees must show a “materially significant disadvantage” resulting from the transfer.
In Muldrow, the petitioner, Sergeant Jatonya Clayborn Muldrow, claimed her employer transferred her from one job to another because she is a woman. She filed a Title VII suit, alleging that she suffered sex discrimination with respect to the “terms [or] conditions” of her employment. The lower courts rejected Muldrow’s claim because the transfer did not cause her a “significant” employment disadvantage. The Supreme Court reversed and “disapprove[d]” of the “significant” employment disadvantage standard for addressing Title VII suits arising from job transfers. The Court clarified that, “[a]lthough an employee must show some harm from a forced transfer to prevail in a Title VII suit, she need not show that the injury satisfies a significance test.”
Under the new standard established in Muldrow, an employee challenging a job transfer under Title VII must show that the transfer brought about some harm related to an identifiable term or condition of employment. However, the harm need not be significant and any adverse impact on terms or conditions is sufficient.
It remains uncertain how courts will interpret what constitutes an adverse impact on employment terms or conditions. Therefore, employers should exercise caution when transferring employees, as even minor adverse effects could now invite Title VII scrutiny. Employers should assess the transfer’s impact on various aspects of the employee’s role, including responsibilities, benefits, schedule, and relationships.
Specifically, employers should consider three key factors when conducting job transfers. Firstly, there must be a legitimate business reasons for the transfer, which can serve as a defense against discrimination claims. Documentation of these reasons is essential to substantiate non-discriminatory intent. Secondly, they should evaluate the transfer’s impact on the employee, encompassing factors like pay, schedule, career prospects, and workplace dynamics. Lastly, transfers should align with the organization’s and employee’s best interests.
While it will take time for case law to establish what the “some harm” standard means, it’s important to note that employees challenging job transfers must still prove that they were adversely affected, although not to a significant degree.
