04-23-2024
A lateral transfer can cause sufficient harm to support a sex bias claim, per the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri.
Jatonya Clayborn Muldrow sued the St. Louis Police Department after the department transferred her from the intelligence division. As a member of that department, she was a plainclothes officer who could be deputized as an FBI agent, work a steady weekday schedule, and broadly investigate public corruption and human trafficking cases. Muldrow's supervisor praised her as a "workhorse" and said he could count on her. However, a new supervisor transferred Muldrow to a uniformed position in another department. She earned the same pay and kept the same rank, but it cost her the FBI privileges and required her to work patrol and some weekend shifts. Her new supervisor replaced Muldrow with a male sergeant. Muldrow sued, alleging her job transfer was discrimination based on sex. A federal district court and a federal appeals court dismissed her claims because the job transfer did not amount to “a tangible change in working conditions that produces a material employment disadvantage.”
Justice Elena Kagan wrote the unanimous majority opinion for the Supreme Court (three justices filed concurring opinions). In her opinion, Justice Kagan asserted the lower courts used an incorrect standard. Muldrow needed to show only "some harm" to the terms or conditions of her employment, but her injury did not have to satisfy a "significance test.” Justice Kagan wrote that Muldrow met the court's standard with "room to spare," as she was worse off "several times over."
Employment attorneys told the New York Times that the court's ruling, which seemingly lowered the standard for bringing claims, could result in more discrimination cases, including reverse discrimination claims against some DEI programs.