In a recent decision signaling implications for Title VII discrimination plaintiffs, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected a lower appellate court’s stipulation that plaintiffs need to demonstrate considerable harm from a discriminatory job transfer. In the case of Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, a police officer claimed she was relocated from an esteemed task force due to her gender.
The Supreme Court’s ruling, overturning the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit’s requirement for plaintiffs to present evidence of “materially significant disadvantages”, has eased the burden of proof in Title VII claims. The Supreme Court order indicated that plaintiffs just need to demonstrate some form of harm, hence, possibly impacting the outcome of challenges to workplace diversity, equity, and inclusion policies. National Law Journal reported.
In the words of Justice Elena Kagan, “To make out a Title VII discrimination claim, a transferee must show some harm respecting an identifiable term or condition of employment. What the transferee does not have to show, according to the relevant text, is that the harm incurred was ‘significant.’