Will the Supreme Court’s Decision in Muldrow Impact School Districts?

In Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, (Decided April 17, 2024), the Supreme Court resolved a Circuit split over whether or not an employee challenging a transfer under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act must meet a heightened threshold of significant or serious harm. Justice Kagan, writing the opinion, concluded the text of Title VII imposes no such requirement. Specifically, an employee challenging a job transfer under Title VII must show that the transfer brought about some harm with respect to an identifiable term or condition of employment, but that harm need not be significant.

Jatonya Muldrow, a police officer, claimed she was transferred out of a police intelligence unit by a new supervisor who wanted a male officer in the position. While Muldrow’s rank and pay remained the same in the new position, her responsibilities, perks, and schedule did not. The Court stated Muldrow “need show only some injury respecting her employment terms or conditions. The transfer must have left her worse off, but need not have left her significantly so. And Muldrow’s allegations, if properly preserved and supported, meet that test with room to spare.”

To make out a Title VII discrimination claim, a transferred employee must show some harm respecting an identifiable term or condition of employment. What the transferred employee does not have to show is that the harm incurred was significant, serious, or substantial, or any similar adjective suggesting that the disadvantage to the employee must exceed a heightened bar. 

“Discriminate against” means treat worse, here based on sex. Kagan states, “neither that phrase nor any other says anything about how much worse. There is nothing in the provision to distinguish, as the courts below did, between transfers causing significant disadvantages and transfers causing not-so-significant ones.”

The ruling may make it easier to bring certain workplace discrimination lawsuits by lowering the bar Title VII plaintiffs must meet.  The opinion also poses concerns for school districts because if more staff transfers can be litigated under federal civil rights law, schools could be forced to spend undue time and resources on litigation rather than serving the educational needs of students. The Court assures, however, “there is reason to doubt that the floodgates will open in the way feared.” Kagan explains, “the anti-discrimination provision at issue requires that the employee show some injury…[it] requires that the employer have acted for discriminatory reasons ‘because of’ sex or race or other protected trait.”