U.S. Supreme Court Revises Tenth Circuit Standard on Adverse Employment Actions
The United State Supreme Court recently realigned the previously held Tenth Circuit standard required to be shown by a plaintiff to succeed in alleging an adverse employment action. In Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, 144 S. Ct. 967 (2024), the high court held a plaintiff need not show the action was “significant,” but just a minimal disadvantage. Muldrow updates the standard in both federal and state cases involving employment discrimination under Title VII.
The plaintiff in Muldrow brought a claim of gender discrimination and retaliation against the City of St. Louis Police Department after she was transferred by the department to a less prestigious position, though her rank and pay remained the same as it was prior to the transfer. She claimed the Department discriminated against her based on her gender when the Captain referred to her as “Mrs.” instead of “Sergeant” and when the Captain replaced her with a male officer who “seemed a better fit” for the “very dangerous work” previously performed by Muldrow. The new administrative position did not change her rank or pay but changed her working hours and had fewer “material benefits” including her previously held Monday-Friday work week and take-home car.
The District Court granted summary judgment to the Department, finding Muldrow had not faced a “significant” change in working conditions because her pay and rank remained the same. However, the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed the circuit standard and found it did not reflect the standard set by Title VII, which does not require a “significant” change in benefits, only that the plaintiff “show some harm respecting an identifiable term or condition of employment.” Id. at 974.
Employers should be aware of this updated interpretation when making decisions that affect their employees. Employees may still face discipline and internal transfers for the betterment of the employer are not prohibited. However, the employer must demonstrate a legitimate reason when taking action against an employee to ensure compliance with Title VII and other federal and state laws.
You can read the full decision discussing this revised standard here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-193_q86b.pdf