On December 6, 2023, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, a case involving a St. Louis Police Department officer’s claim that she was subject to a discriminatory job transfer based on her gender. The Supreme Court’s decision in Muldrow could significantly modify the standard required to prove employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) as it applies to job transfers.
Plaintiffs must prove that they suffered an “adverse employment action” in order to prevail on a Title VII employment discrimination claim. Over the years, the courts of appeal have used varying terminology to develop definitions of “adverse employment action” that require something more than a merely trivial or non-impactful alteration to one’s working conditions.
For example, in a 2007 case, Clegg v. Ark. Dep’t of Corr., the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals (where the Muldrow case originated) ruled that “[a]n adverse employment action is a tangible change in working conditions that produces a material employment disadvantage.”[1]
Examples of typical adverse employment actions may include termination, reduced compensation, demotion, etc.
In Muldrow, the officer has challenged any definition of “adverse employment action” that requires a plaintiff to suffer a “tangible” or “material” employment disadvantage in order to prevail on a Title VII claim....
A popular social media conspiracy theory about a recent cluster of hantavirus cases claims that the word “hanta” means “scam,” “fraud,” or “nonsense” in “Hebrew slang.” That’s more or less where t...