The Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision on Wednesday that could have significant implications for discrimination cases involving forced transfers in the workplace. The ruling, written by Justice Elena Kagan, favored a St. Louis police sergeant who alleged gender discrimination after being involuntarily transferred out of an intelligence division.
The case centered on Jatonya Clayborn Muldrow, who claimed that her department discriminated against her by reassigning her duties without reducing her pay. Despite the 8th US Circuit Court of Appeals initially ruling that the transfer did not result in a 'materially significant' disadvantage for Muldrow, the Supreme Court's decision opens the door for her to pursue a discrimination lawsuit.
Muldrow's initial assignment allowed her to work weekdays, wear plainclothes, and participate in an FBI task force. However, her reassignment in 2017 required her to work weekends, wear a police uniform, and revoked her FBI credentials, although her base pay remained unchanged.
Justice Kagan emphasized that an employee does not need to demonstrate a significant injury to their employment terms or conditions to seek legal recourse for discrimination. The decision clarifies that a forced transfer must leave the employee worse off, even if not significantly so.
Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits workplace discrimination, Muldrow filed a lawsuit against the city. Despite initial rulings against her claims of gender discrimination and retaliation, the case will now proceed in a lower federal court.
While Justices Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh concurred with the outcome, they expressed reservations about the clarity of the majority opinion. Justice Alito criticized the decision as 'unhelpful' and raised concerns about the standards set for employees to challenge forced transfers.
As the legal implications of this ruling unfold, it is expected to impact how discrimination cases related to involuntary transfers are litigated in the future.
