Supreme Court lowers barriers to Title VII claims

In a ruling with significant implications for suits challenging diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and other similar programs, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on April 17 that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits certain discriminatory job-related actions even if they don’t immediately yield a “materially significant disadvantage.”

Some harm

With rare unanimity, the Court in Muldrow v. St. Louis struck down a judge-made criterion that required Title VII claimants in numerous Circuit courts to show that the challenged employment decision involved “materially significant disadvantage.” The justices determined that such a requirement did not exist in the language of the statute and improperly barred legitimate claimants. Under the Court’s new standard, claimants will now have to show they suffered “some harm respecting an identifiable term or condition of employment.”

The Muldrow case involved an involuntary transfer of a black, female police sergeant to a position with less prestige and responsibilities. Muldrow insisted the transfer would deter her career prospects, even though her compensation and rank were unaffected. Furthermore, and critically, she claimed she was transferred because of her race and gender and to “make room” for her supervisor’s white, male friend. The Supreme Court agreed she could make a valid Title VII claim—but the ruling isn’t limited to transfers.

National standard, but more flexible