Episode description

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in Muldrow v City of St. Louis.

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibit discrimination in transfer decisions absent a separate court determination that the transfer decision caused a signification disadvantage?

The case was decided on April 17, 2024.

The Supreme Court held that an employee challenging a job transfer under Title VII must show that the transfer brought about some harm with respect to an identifiable term or condition of employment, but that harm need not be significant. Although the judgment vacating and remanding the case was unanimous, Justice Elena Kagan authored the majority opinion of the Court, which was joined by five other Justices.

Nothing in Title VII’s text requires a transferred employee to show that the harm they suffered was “significant.” Rather, as long as the transfer left the employee worse off in some way with respect to their employment terms or conditions, and was made because of a protected characteristic like sex or race, it violates Title VII’s prohibition on discrimination. There is no basis for reading a heightened “significant harm” standard into the statute. Title VII targets employment practices that treat a person worse because of a protected trait, without distinguishing between significant and less significant harms. While concerns about frivolous lawsuits are valid, courts have other ways to dismiss meritless claims without imposing an extra-textual "significant harm" requirement.

Justice Clarence Thomas authored an opinion concurring in the judgment suggesting that the majority misinterpreted the opinion by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, below. Justice Thomas argued that the appeals court’s language requiring “a tangible change in working conditions that produces a material employment disadvantage” is not a heightened-harm requirement.

Justice Samuel Alito authored an opinion concurring in the judgment criticizing the majority for failing to clarify the degree of harm required under Title VII, arguing that there is “little if any substantive difference between the terminology the Court approves and the terminology it doesn’t like.”

Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored an opinion concurring in the judgment, arguing that while he agrees with the majority in rejecting the “significant employment disadvantage” requirement, he disagrees with its new standard requiring “some harm.” Justice Kavanaugh provided an example of a situation that clearly violates Title VII but may not satisfy the majority’s “some harm” requirement: “We are transferring you to the Cincinnati office because you are black. But your compensation will not change.” Any transfer on a discriminatory basis—no matter how quantifiable the harm—should be a violation of Title VII.

The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.