A 2024 U.S. Supreme Court decision lowering harm standards for plaintiffs pleading employment discrimination has broadened the array of litigation employers could face, an attorney told attendees at a Nov. 18 National Employment Law Institute virtual event.
In Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, the court held that employees challenging discrimination need not prove that they suffered “significant” harm under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Instead, the unanimous court said such plaintiffs must show merely that “some harm with respect to an identifiable term or condition of employment.”
The result is notable in part because the plaintiff alleged that a forced job transfer resulted in changes to her responsibilities, perks and schedule as well as an overall less prestigious role. She suffered no economic damages as a result of the transfer, though the loss of prestige indicated emotional and personal harm.
Muldrow is already shifting the bases on which employees allege they’ve faced adverse employment actions in violation of Title VII, according to Cameron Fox, partner at Paul Hastings.
“I personally am seeing more cases where transfers and [their] effect on the career and the psyche is being alleged as damage,” Fox said. The court’s updated harm standard, she added, is “a very low threshold” that “at least, in theory, could keep us employment lawyers pretty well-employed.”
One case shows how Muldrow could favor plaintiffs moving forward. In 2023, the 5th U.S. Circuit...
Your support helps us to tell the story From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financi...