The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard a case centered on lateral job transfers, but the case could impact other employment policies and practices, especially the criteria for inclusion, equity and diversity (IE&D) initiatives.
Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers cannot discriminate against workers with respect to their compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment because of their race, color, sex, religion or national origin.
In Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, a female police officer alleged sex discrimination. The court focused on whether tangible harm is required in order to prove discrimination in an involuntary job transfer. Examples of harm would be getting less pay, fewer benefits, less promotion potential, lower rank or unfavorable hours.
The tenor of the justices' questioning during oral arguments on Dec. 6 "suggests they will establish that an employee doesn't need to show additional harm to state a claim based on a discriminatory transfer," said Brandon Moulard and Jonathan Crotty, attorneys with Parker Poe in Atlanta and Charlotte, N.C., in an email. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson noted plaintiffs won't receive damages if they don't show material harm for which they should be compensated.
"Employers should bet on Muldrow widening Title VII's reach," Moulard and Crotty said.
Along with involuntary transfers, the case could have ramifications for other employment decisions, such as performance evaluations, disciplinary...
QUEENSLAND— A nurse in Australia has been formally reprimanded after admitting he submitted forged documents to Qantas (QF) in an attempt to secure a refund for a non-refundable airline ticket. Th...