In Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, the U.S. Supreme Court held that an employee alleging a violation of Title VII need only show that alleged discriminatory action by the employer resulted in “harm.” The employee does not need to show that the harm was “significant.”
The plaintiff in this case worked as a plainclothes police officer for almost 10 years when her new supervisor transferred her to a uniformed position elsewhere and replaced her with a male officer. The plaintiff’s rank and pay remained the same, but her responsibilities, perks and schedule did not. After the transfer, she no longer worked with high-ranking officials, she lost access to a take-home vehicle and had a less regular schedule involving weekend shifts.
The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the police department claiming that she was discriminated against based on her gender with respect to the transfer. The lower courts dismissed her claim on the basis that she could not show that the transfer caused her a “materially significant disadvantage” because it “did not result in a diminution to her title, salary, or benefits” and had caused “only minor changes in working conditions.”
The Supreme Court reversed the lower courts’ decisions. The Court explained that to establish a Title VII discrimination claim, an employee “must show some harm respecting an identifiable term or condition of employment.” The employee does not have to show that the harm incurred was “significant” or otherwise exceeded some heightened bar.
The takeaway for employers is that a job transfer or other potentially adverse employment action, such as discipline, could constitute discrimination under Title VII even if the employee cannot demonstrate significant harm resulting from the action.
