The issue for the justices was whether the statute guards against all discriminatory job transfers or requires an additional showing in court by the employee that the involuntary move caused a “significant disadvantage,” such as harm to career prospects or a change in salary or rank.
Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the court, said that higher standard applied by some lower courts was wrong.
“Although an employee must show some harm from a forced transfer to prevail,” Kagan wrote, “she need not show that the injury satisfies a significance test.”
Jatonya Clayborn Muldrow sued the St. Louis Police Department after she was transferred in 2017 out of the intelligence division, a position that allowed her to be deputized as an FBI agent, work a steady weekday schedule and broadly investigate public corruption and human trafficking cases.
Muldrow said in court filings that her new assignment lacked the same prestige and benefits. Even though her pay remained the same, she lost her FBI privileges, had to work patrol and was assigned weekend shifts. Muldrow, who according to court filings was known as a “workhorse,” was replaced in the intelligence division by a male sergeant who previously worked with Muldrow’s male supervisor.
In her opinion Wednesday, Kagan wrote that Muldrow’s allegations meet the court’s new standard “with room to spare.”
“If those allegations are proved, she was left worse off several times over. It does not matter, as the courts below thought, that her rank and pay remained the same, or that she still could advance to other jobs,” Kagan wrote.
In addition to civil rights groups, the case is being closely watched by employment attorneys and some conservatives who have said a broad ruling for Muldrow could lead to an increase in reverse discrimination claims against workplace diversity, equity and inclusion programs.
A District Court judge in Missouri had sided with the city in the lawsuit, saying Muldrow had not proved that her transfer caused sufficient disadvantage. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit agreed, finding that Muldrow could not proceed with her lawsuit because she failed to demonstrate that the transfer amounted to an “adverse employment action” that caused tangible harm.
The Supreme Court’s opinion sends Muldrow’s case back to the lower courts for additional proceedings that account for the high court ruling.
This is a developing story. It will be updated.