Muldrow v. City of St. Louis

Background

Sergeant Jatonya Clayborn Muldrow worked from 2008 to 2017 in the St. Louis Police Department’s plainclothes Intelligence Division. Her new division commander asked to transfer her out so he could replace her with a male officer. The Department reassigned her to a uniformed role in the Fifth District. Her rank and pay stayed the same, but she lost FBI task force status, an unmarked take-home car, a regular Monday–Friday schedule, and many high-visibility responsibilities and networking opportunities.

Reasoning

The Court considered whether Title VII requires a transferred employee to show a “significant” or “material” harm to bring a sex-discrimination claim. Relying on the statute’s text, the Court held that a plaintiff must show some disadvantage affecting an identifiable term or condition of employment, but the law does not impose an extra requirement that the harm be significant. The Court rejected transplanting the higher “materially adverse” retaliation standard into the discrimination provision and noted that lower courts may still address forfeiture and proof issues on remand.

Real world impact

The decision lowers the barrier for employees who say they were moved to a lesser job because of sex: they need show they were made worse off in some identifiable job term or condition, not that the harm was large. Employers and courts will reassess previous rulings that required “significant” injury. The case was vacated and remanded so the lower courts can reevaluate the record under the correct standard; this ruling is not a final merits finding.

Dissents or concurrances

Three Justices concurred in the judgment but disagreed about the wording of the rule. Justice Thomas emphasized a more-than-trifling idea; Justice Alito criticized the majority’s wording; Justice Kavanaugh argued a discriminatory transfer itself violates Title VII and questioned the need for a separate "some harm" requirement.