Supreme Court Clarifies Title VII Standard for Discrimination Claims

Employees must show "some" harm rather than "significant" harm

May 02, 2024 Photo

On April 17, the U.S. Supreme Court rendered an opinion in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis resolving a circuit split over what standard an employee challenging a transfer under the anti-discrimination provision of Title VII must meet. In Muldrow, the court held Title VII does not impose a heightened standard on employees challenging a transfer. Rather, employees need to show “some harm” to an identifiable term or condition of employment, and need not show the harm was significant.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it unlawful for employers “to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” 

Muldrow involved a female sergeant in the St. Louis Police Department working as a plain-clothes officer in the department’s Intelligence Division. While in the Intelligence Division, Muldrow worked Monday through Friday, and was deputized as a Task Force Officer with the Federal Bureau of Investigation. This granted her FBI credentials, and an unmarked take-home vehicle.

When a new commander took over the Intelligence Division, Muldrow was reassigned to a uniformed position, and a male replaced her in the Intelligence Division. Muldrow’s rank and pay remained the same, but her job responsibilities, perks, and schedule changed. Muldrow now supervised the day-to-day activities of neighborhood patrol officers, reviewed and approved arrest reports, and did some patrol work herself. Upon the transfer, Muldrow lost her FBI credentials and take-home car, and started working a rotating schedule, which involved some weekend shifts.

Muldrow challenged the transfer under Title VII, claiming that her transfer from the Intelligence Division was because of her sex, and claimed the transfer put Muldrow in a less prestigious role with fewer opportunities to work on important investigations and network with commanding officers, in addition to losing her take-home car, and Monday-Friday schedule.

The Supreme Court rejected lower court holdings that Muldrow needed to show a significant harm resulting from the transfer, and ultimately held that an employee must simply show “some harm” with respect to an identifiable term or condition of employment when challenging a transfer. The level of harm need not be significant, serious, or substantial.

While the decision was 9-0, three justices filed concurrences. Justice Thomas indicated that he disagreed with the court’s characterization of the Eighth Circuit’s decision as requiring a “heightened-harm requirement” and noted that a plaintiff must have suffered an actual disadvantage as compared to minor changes (i.e. more than a trifling harm).

Justice Alito criticized the court’s opinion and referred to it has “unhelpful” and that he has “no idea what [it] means.”

Finally, Justice Kavanaugh stated the analysis should be quite straightforward, and that “the only question then is whether the relevant employment action changes the compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.”

In light of Muldrow, employers are advised to be mindful of the effects an involuntary job transfer has on the terms and conditions of the transferring employee, and to seek employment counsel prior to making those decisions.

This article originally appeared on Goldberg Segalla. 

About The Authors
Multiple Contributors
Caroline Berdzik

Caroline J. Berdzik is an attorney with Goldberg Segalla LLP. She can be reached at

Scott R. Green

Scott R. Green is a Partner at Goldberg Segalla.

Christopher P. Maugans

Christopher P. Maugans is a Partner at Goldberg

Chloe J. Nowak

Chloe J. Nowak is an Associate at Goldberg Segalla.

Sponsored Content
Daily Claims News
  Powered by Claims Pages
About The Community

Through education and action, CLM’s Diversity and Inclusion Committee advances the mission of inclusion, and identifies and supports practices that demonstrate leadership in common core values. The committee offers unique opportunities to help strengthen CLM’s partners and perspectives.

Community Events
No community events