Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, reshaping the landscape of employment discrimination law.
In a unanimous opinion, the Court held that an employee alleging a discriminatory job transfer need only demonstrate that the transfer caused “some harm” to a term or condition of employment. In doing so, the Court rejected the previous requirement to show “significant” or “material” harm. Employers are now left to wonder: what exactly counts as enough harm to constitute “some harm”?
The ruling left employers (and the lower courts) with a vague and confusing standard. The Court did not precisely define what types or degrees of harm would suffice, creating uncertainty around how to apply the “some harm” test in practice.
In the months since Muldrow was handed down, judges within the Fourth Circuit have started to test the decision’s reach. That includes not only the Fourth Circuit’s own published opinions, but also rulings from federal district courts within the Fourth Circuit, which is made up of Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia. Together, these opinions create a patchwork picture of how courts are grappling with Muldrow’s uncertainties.
Here are seven things we’ve learned about the fallout of Muldrow based on our analysis of the published opinions in the Fourth Circuit that have substantively addressed the case so far:
When examiners don’t get veterans’ records, bad decisions aren’t a mistake—they’re a systemic failure. In a blistering oversight hearing this week, members of Congress openly questioned whether th...