Takeaway: Muldrow was a landmark case that substantially altered the landscape of employment discrimination law. Unlike in years past, an employer can no longer expect that courts will consider a job transfer involving no reduction in pay or benefits a change that does not qualify as an adverse employment action. Instead, any change to employment status, particularly one that involves modification of responsibilities, schedule, or location, could make the action adverse.
Historically, employers may have believed that relatively minor employment changes, lesser in magnitude than demotion or termination, would not subject them to litigation. Now, under a more relaxed U.S. Supreme Court standard, litigation based on such actions is much more likely and the bar is lower for a successful claim by an employee.
In light of this standard, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district court's grant of summary judgment for the Social Security Administration (SSA) on an employee's claims of disability-based discrimination, retaliation, and failure to accommodate. Underscoring the importance of the recent change in controlling Supreme Court precedent regarding what constitutes an adverse employment action for purposes of such claims, the 4th Circuit held that the district court erred in determining the reassignment of the employee to a position with the same salary and benefits did not qualify as adverse.
The employee, who had a disability, supervised others. As an...
Tamil Nadu Minister for Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare M.R.K. Panneerselvam on Saturday (November 22, 2025) accused the Opposition parties of spreading false allegations against the State govern...