High Court to Determine Depth of Workplace Bias Law

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case likely to determine what protections are afforded to employees who allege they were involuntarily transferred within the workplace based on discriminatory bias. 

The underlying lawsuit, Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, was filed by St. Louis police officer Jatonya Muldrow, who alleged she was transferred from the Intelligence Division to a lower-level patrol position because a new supervisor wanted to replace her with a male police officer. 

Following her transfer, Muldrow sued the department arguing it violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by discriminating against her based on gender. 

Section 703 of Title VII states that it is unlawful for employers to discriminate against an individual’s “terms, conditions or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex or national origin.” 

The St. Louis Police Department denied Muldrow’s allegations and stated that Muldrow’s supervisor, Captain Michael Deeba, oversaw 22 personnel transfers after beginning his new position, including transferring five female police officers. 

The issue that the court must determine is whether the provisions of Title VII extend to any kind of discriminatory conduct committed by employers or if it is limited to conduct that could lead to a significant disadvantage for the employee. 

The district court and the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals both ruled in favor of the department, stating that “Sergeant Muldrow could not show that she experienced an adverse employment action.” 

Further, the 8th Circuit held that involuntary workplace transfers are allowed so long as they do not lead to “materially significant disadvantages” for the employees in question. 

After Muldrow appealed to the Supreme Court, the justices asked to hear the Biden administration’s thoughts on the case. 

In a brief filed in May, the U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argued, “the 8th Circuit’s contrary rule — that a plaintiff must prove that a discriminatory job transfer resulted in a ‘materially significant disadvantage’ — has no foundation in Title VII’s text, structure or purpose.”

“All forced job transfers and denials of job transfers based on an employee’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin are actionable under Title VII,” Prelogar continued. 

While the Supreme Court agreed to take on Muldrow’s case, it did not move forward on a case with a similar legal doctrine involving a racial bias lawsuit filed by former Democratic U.S. Rep. Artur Davis of Alabama.

Davis resigned his seat following an unsuccessful gubernatorial bid, and later applied for a position as executive director of Legal Services Alabama, a nonprofit that provides civil legal services to low-income Alabamians. 

He later sued his employer alleging he had been suspended with pay and forced out of his position because of his race. 

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that paid suspensions are not considered to be an “adverse employment action” under Title VII in a ruling similar to that in the Muldrow case. 

The Supreme Court will hear Muldrow v. St. Louis during its next term, which starts in October. 

You can reach us at [email protected] and follow us on Facebook and Twitter