Following the Supreme Court of the United States’ April 2024 ruling in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, employers have grappled with determining what constitutes an adverse employment action that will support a claim under federal antidiscrimination laws. A recent decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit offers some guidance in the context of job reassignments or transfers.

• In Herkert v. Bisignano, No. 24-1420 (August 14, 2025), the Fourth Circuit found that, depending on the circumstances, a job reassignment may be an adverse employment action under the Supreme Court’s Muldrow standard.
• While finding that an employee’s acceptance of a new position does not necessarily mean that the change was voluntary, the Fourth Circuit declined to hold that any loss of supervisory authority would constitute “an actionable ‘disadvantageous change’ in employment status.”
• Employers may need to be prepared to explain and defend the legitimate reasons for a reassignment decision.

An employee who served as a supervisory building manager for the Social Security Administration (SSA) suffered from multiple physical disabilities, including severe renal impairment, pulmonary impairment, and spondylosis. The employee’s request for scheduled telework as an accommodation for her medical needs was initially denied. She challenged the denial, and an SSA official eventually determined that the requested accommodation was reasonable and effective.

In the meantime, due to...

Read Full Story: https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMi9AFBVV95cUxQTG5PZ1hNa2JwQnhMNE84czNZ...