An employee challenging a job transfer under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act must show the transfer brought about some harm with respect to an identifiable term or condition of employment, but that harm need not be significant, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Mo., No. 22-193 (Apr. 17, 2024).
Articles Discussing Employer Liability Under Title VII.
Supreme Court Clarifies Standard Employees Must Show for Title VII Discrimination Claims
In Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, the U.S. Supreme Court purports to clarify the standard of harm employees must show when alleging an involuntary transfer was discriminatory
US Supreme Court Holds Lateral Job Transfers Can Be Discriminatory Under Title VII
By: US Supreme Court Holds Lateral Job Transfers Can Be Discriminatory Under Title VII
By: US Supreme Court Holds Lateral Job Transfers Can Be Discriminatory Under Title VII
On April 17, 2024, the United States Supreme Court delivered a win to employees holding that a lateral job transfer can be discriminatory under
High Court Lowers the Bar on Title VII Claims: “Significant” Harm No Longer Required
On April 17, 2024, the Supreme Court decided that employees do not need to suffer “significant” harm to state a claim of discrimination under Title VII. In so ruling, the Court rejected a level of proof as to harm that many lower courts had long required Title VII plaintiffs establish
Supreme Court Rules Employees Need Not Show Transfer Caused ‘Significant’ Harm For Title VII Claims
On April 17, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States held that an employee challenging a job transfer in an unlawful employment discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 must show that the transfer caused some identifiable harm, but the harm does not need
Supreme Court Appears Ready to Hold Title VII Does Not Require a Materially Adverse Employment Action – Significant Implications for Employers on the Horizon
On December 6, 2023, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) heard arguments in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri—a potentially pivotal case concerning whether Title VII requires plaintiffs to establish a “materially adverse” employment action, “objective tangible harm,” or an “ultimate employment decision” to state a
U.S. Supreme Court Appears to Side With Employee Alleging Discriminatory Transfer in Oral Argument
Even as the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Mo., No. 22-193, on Dec. 6, 2023, on the narrow issue of whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits job transfers that do not cause a “significant disadvantage” to workers, it hinted at future battles over the scope of workplace discrimination. The justices appeared sympathetic to workers and expressed concerns about limiting the scope of Title VII.
Fifth Circuit Overrules Long-Standing Precedent to Align Itself with Other Courts Addressing Title VII Claims
Executive Summary: The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (which covers Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi) recently held that Title VII plaintiffs can show they were subjected to an adverse employment action for purposes of a Title VII claim even if they were not subjected to an “ultimate employment decision.”
Fifth Circuit Upends ‘Ultimate Employment Decision’ Requirement for Title VII Discrimination Claims
On August 18, 2023, in Hamilton v. Dallas County, the full Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upended long-standing precedent, significantly broadening the types of adverse employment actions that could give rise to an actionable claim. Prior to this decision, and for nearly thirty years, Fifth Circuit precedent required a plaintiff
U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Whether Title VII Protects Employees Contending Discriminatory Transfer
The U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination in forced transfer decisions without also requiring a showing that the transfer decision caused the employee a materially significant disadvantage in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Mo., No. 22-193.
U.S. Supreme Court Holds that Spending Clause Antidiscrimination Statutes do not Permit Recovery of Damages for Emotional Distress
Executive Summary: In a groundbreaking opinion authored by Chief Justice Roberts in Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller, P.L.L.C., the United States Supreme Court held that damages for emotional distress are not recoverable in a private action for discrimination brought pursuant statutes governing those receiving federal funding enacted pursuant to the Spending Clause. There are four such statutes for those receiving federal funding: Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits race, color and national origin discrimination; Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits sex discrimination in schools; the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“Rehab Act”) prohibits disability discrimination; and the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) prohibits discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, disability, and age by healthcare entities.
Documentation Saves the Day in Retaliation Suit
When facing a wrongful termination/retaliation claim, the organization and detail of an employer’s files will be put to the test. In a recent decision, an employer maintained well-documented, detailed files which helped to prove that a termination was not retaliatory. In Lacey v. Norac, Inc., the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment to an employer in a retaliation claim under Title VII based on allegations that the employee was terminated for refusing to sign an affidavit on the employer’s behalf.
Employee’s ADA Claim is Out of Sight
Advancements in technology and software can help employers track employee productivity. But what happens when an employee’s medical condition influences her ability to use an employer’s technology?
Applicant’s Claim That Racially Biased Safety Officer Cancelled His Split Specimen Drug Test Was Insufficient to Establish Race Discrimination Under Cat’s Paw Theory
An employer that refused to hire an applicant based on a positive pre-employment drug test was entitled to summary judgment on the applicant’s race discrimination and civil conspiracy claims despite the applicant’s argument that the company safety officer cancelled his split specimen drug test due to discriminatory animus, according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Turner v. Hirschbach Motor Lines, Case No. 15-3263 (7th Cir. Apr. 24, 2017).
Beware the Cat’s Paw: Employer Liability for Harassment Expanded
The Second Circuit has expanded a theory of liability that can be asserted against employers. Previously, the Second Circuit had not ruled on whether an employer can be held liable for the actions of a lower-level employee with a discriminatory motive who manipulates an unwitting manager or employer into engaging in an adverse employment action. In Vazquez v. Empress Ambulance Service, Ms. Vazquez accused a co-worker of sexual harassment and outlined in detail obscene and blatant actions taken by the co-worker that constituted sexual harassment.