Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis that has resulted in profound changes to when employees can claim discrimination relating to job decisions that do not appear to have much impact on their terms and conditions of employment. In Muldrow, the court unanimously held that federal antidiscrimination laws apply to decisions that do not involve significant disadvantages to the employee’s career. In that case, the employee claimed that a lateral transfer with no impact on pay or rank was made based on her gender.
The Supreme Court held that Title VII protects employees against discrimination even when there is no demonstration of material harm. Small changes to schedules, differences in the type or prestige of work assignments, or loss of perks can form the basis of a discrimination action.
Prior to Muldrow, supervisors may have routinely made these decisions without thinking about their potential legal impacts. Given the ease with which disgruntled employees can claim discrimination, even seemingly innocuous decisions can result in EEOC charges and eventual lawsuits. When supervisors receive employment training, these materials should emphasize the impacts of Muldrow and sensitize managers to the need to coordinate lateral moves with human resources in order to minimize the risks of discrimination or retaliation claims.
[View source.]
