Plaintiff appealed the adverse grant of summary judgment in his Title VII case. Plaintiff, a police officer, was assigned as an animal abuse investigator when his new supervisor transferred him to a patrol position and replaced plaintiff with a gay officer. Plaintiff alleged that the supervisor favored gay officers and transferred plaintiff because he is straight. However, the district court granted summary judgment for defendants on plaintiff’s Title VII, Missouri Human Rights Act, and equal protection claims.
Where plaintiff’s salary, rank, and potential for promotion were unaffected by his transfer out of a special unit to a patrol position, he could not prove that he suffered an adverse employment action to support a sexual orientation discrimination claim.
Stras, J., concurring: “Both here and in Muldrow, the answer appears to be yes: transferring an employee from a plum assignment with regular hours to a job with worse hours and less-important responsibilities alters the ‘terms, conditions, or privileges of employment,’ whether or not it involves a change in rank or salary. Despite my reservations, however, I am still bound by Muldrow and the other adverse-employment-action cases that came before it. So I concur in the court’s opinion, which is a faithful application of precedent.”
Judgment is affirmed.
Naes v. City of St. Louis (MLW No. 80059/Case No. 22-2021 – 5 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, per curiam) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern...
President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance, and other Republican officials came together for a 2-day convention this week to rally voters in advance of the midterm elections in November. But ...