April 29th Tip of the Week
“What Constitutes Harm for Purposes of Title VII?”
The United States Supreme Court just lowered the standard of proof required by plaintiffs in a Title VII discrimination claim. The case, Muldrow v. City of Saint Louis, No. 22-193, 2024 WL 1642826 (U.S. April 17, 2024), involved a claim made by a female police officer regarding an involuntary transfer, which she claimed was due to her gender and violated Title VII. Prior to the transfer, the plaintiff served as a plainclothes officer in the Intelligence Division and had done so for nine years. She was replaced in that role by a male officer, who was deemed to be “a better fit” for “the dangerous work” of the Intelligence Division. Although the plaintiff retained her rank and salary, she argued that the transfer was more akin to a demotion in that it limited her opportunities to work on important investigations and to interact with commanding officers. Additionally, the plaintiff noted that, in her new role, she was required to work a rotating schedule (much different than her 9 to 5 schedule in her prior role) and she lost the use of an unmarked vehicle that she could take home.
In reviewing the plaintiff’s claim that her involuntary transfer was due to her sex and was in violation of Title VII, the lower court granted a summary judgment motion by the City of St. Louis, stating that the plaintiff could not meet the showing required under Title VII because she retained the same title and pay. The lower court indicated that the plaintiff needed to show that she experienced a “materially significant disadvantage” and she did not. This standard has been the subject of a split in the Circuit Courts, with some courts requiring plaintiffs to meet this higher burden of proof and others
The Supreme Court, in vacating the lower’s court decision, held that a plaintiff in a Title VII case is not required to show harm that is “significant” or “material.” Instead, a plaintiff must simply show that the action taken has left them “worse off” with respect to their terms and conditions of employment. A plaintiff only need show “some injury” to prevail in their discrimination claims.
What does this mean for employers? The facts of this case raise some issues that employers need to be aware of and should take steps to avoid. First, the use of the “better fit” language almost always will be interpreted as some sort of discrimination. “Fit” typically means that you have identified the desired characteristics of someone for a particular role and if an applicant or internal candidate does not match those characteristics, then they will be rejected for the role. These “fit” characteristics can almost always be construed to be a certain gender or race or some other protected characteristic and can provide a basis for a discrimination claim. Avoid using the rationale that someone was “not a good fit” when notifying them of an adverse decision. Second, when making involuntary changes to an employee’s position, title, or other terms and conditions of employment, be prepared to explain why those changes are being made – with reasons that are objective and supported by facts – and be aware of the true impact of such changes. Employers often focus on wages and titles when determining whether someone has been harmed, but other terms and conditions exist that employees value, such as schedules, colleagues, location, etc., that if changed may cause an employee to challenge their reassignment or transfer.
Navigating the labor and employment laws and the protections available to employees under federal law is not an easy task. myHRcounsel is here to assist you in handling difficult situations in a fair and practical manner that will avoid liability.