The U.S. Supreme Court has decided that employees who sue claiming their job transfer was discriminatory under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act only need to show they suffered “some harm” from the transfer, as opposed to “significant harm.”
Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating against employees with respect to “compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment” due to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. In this case, a worker argued that she was transferred to another job because of her gender, which negatively affected the terms and conditions of her employment.
The employer argued that the employee wasn’t “significantly” harmed or disadvantaged by the transfer because her rank and pay remained the same. The employee argued that Title VII didn’t require the harm to be “significant.” She pointed out that her schedule changed, she had fewer responsibilities, and she lost the perks of her former job. The Supreme Court sided with the employee, stating that she just needed to show some injury (Muldrow v. St. Louis, US, April 2024).
Tips: Imposing an involuntary transfer to a different job likely changes the terms and conditions of employment (even if the employee’s rank and pay remain the same). If some aspects of the job are less favorable, the employee may be able to allege a discriminatory reason for those changes under Title VII, even if the transfer didn’t harm them significantly. You can minimize the risks for these claims by making sure job transfer decisions are supported by nondiscriminatory business reasons. Reach out to your Vigilant Law Group employment attorney with any questions about this ruling or a particular job transfer.
