The recent unanimous US Supreme Court decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis has set a new precedent for discrimination claims that all employers should be aware of. The ruling asserts that employees no longer have to demonstrate significant financial or other harm when bringing a discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Previously, claims that didn’t show significant harm were dismissed by courts, effectively shutting off certain avenues of discrimination claims. The new ruling eliminates this impediment.
The case revolved around a female police officer who claimed she was transferred to a less prestigious position due to her gender. According to Justice Elena Kagan, the officer needed to show “some harm” from the transfer, but not that the harm satisfied a significance test.
This decision will likely increase Equal Employment Opportunities Commission charges, and a rise in lawsuits filed under Title VII is expected as a result. Employers are, therefore, recommended to assess their risk management strategy, including considerations for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs.
For years, certain federal appellate courts utilized various versions of a materiality standard to decide if an employee could dispute certain employment actions in court. If the action caused no economic impact or other tangible harm, a discrimination claim was more than likely dismissed.
In Muldrow, the lower courts dismissed the officer’s claim due to her transfer not causing “materially significant” harm. Conversely, the Supreme Court ruled that an employee who was transferred doesn’t have to prove the inflicted harm was significant.
As a result, a Title VII claimant must now show that their employer’s actions caused “some harm” or “disadvantageous” change in an employment term or condition. However, the “harm” doesn’t need to be deemed “significant.” Thus the law, as enacted, does not demand something more of claimants under Title VII.
As of now, it is unclear how this ruling in Muldrow will impact employer-led opportunities like mentoring and professional development programs, in addition to DEI initiatives. It remains to be seen whether discrimination claims can be brought forth by employees who believe they were passed over for benefits or advantages related to employers’ DEI programs.
This ruling prompts employers to reevaluate their risk management strategy, including assessing minor changes to the terms and conditions of employment, especially for those who fall under a protected classification according to Title VII.
Companies investing in DEI initiatives should pay careful attention to the qualifications for mentoring programs, professional development initiatives, or sponsorship of affinity groups. While these programs are still viable, participation qualifications based on protected classifications should be avoided.
In conclusion, the ruling in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis undoubtedly gives employers much to contemplate about their work policies, with an emphasis on the importance of equal rights in the workplace.