by The U.S. Supreme Court recently changed the standard for when an employee can successfully claim discrimination based on an undesired change in compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment. Under the new analysis, the harm threshold for establishing employment discrimination has been lowered from showing substantial harm to showing some harm due to employer actions.
Reversing a decision by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in a case involving an unwanted job transfer, the Supreme Court held the employee only had to show that she had suffered some harm due to the employer’s action to be able to carry the case forward. The lower court’s decision, consistent with cases in about half of the federal circuits, had rejected the employee’s claim of discrimination because she couldn’t show ‘significant’ or ‘material’ harm due to the transfer.
In the case that led to this change, Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, a police sergeant was transferred without a change in compensation or rank. However, the move altered her job responsibilities, shifting her from a plainclothes job with duties working with senior leaders in a specialized division to a uniformed role primarily focused on administrative work and supervising patrol officers in one division. The Supreme Court stated that if the employee could prove these negative effects of the job transfer, she would establish enough harm to support a discrimination claim. The decision in this case sets a new standard for establishing harm in discrimination claims under federal law.
While the Supreme Court’s decision has reduced the level of harm required to trigger Title VII coverage of employer actions, it has not provided clear guidelines for measuring harm. This ambiguity is expected to lead to an increase in cases where employees claim discrimination in how employers assign responsibilities and job expectations. Cases that would have been dismissed previously due to an employee’s failure to show substantial harm from an employer action may now be able to proceed. Lower courts will need to determine which actions, short of pay cuts or employment termination, still create enough harm to be considered unlawful employment discrimination.
