4th Circuit decision highlights changed adverse employment action standard

The Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis set the stage for an increase in claims arising out of circumstances in which an employee experiences a change in their working conditions that doesn’t rise to the level of a pay cut, demotion, or termination. The effects of the Court’s decision were highlighted in a recent decision issued by the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, which encompasses federal courts in Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina.

Setting the standard

The Supreme Court’s decision in Muldrow began with a sex discrimination claim filed by a female police officer who was transferred to a different position within the police department after she was replaced by a male employee in a specialized intelligence unit. The city argued she couldn’t sustain a claim because she hadn’t suffered a loss in pay or other tangible harm that could be considered an adverse employment action.

Although the city had prevailed at the trial and appellate court levels, the Supreme Court reversed those decisions. In the Court’s view, “although an employee must show some harm from a forced transfer to prevail [under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964], she need not show that the injury satisfies a significance test.”

Applying the standard