In a pivotal session, the U.S. Supreme Court grappled with the intricate facets of federal law concerning workplace discrimination, focusing on a case involving a St. Louis police officer who claims an unwarranted job transfer due to her gender.
During the extensive two-hour deliberation, justices from both the conservative majority and liberal wing expressed reservations about restricting the scope of the law prohibiting workplace bias. Remarkably, there was a consensus that workplace bias could be deemed illegal even in the absence of tangible harm, such as when employees are transferred while retaining their pay and rank.
The divisive nature of the issue is evident in the conflicting stances of U.S. appeals courts. Two of them asserted that proving harm beyond discrimination itself is unnecessary, while the St. Louis-based 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the officer, Jatonya Muldrow, contending that the transfer did not adversely affect her working conditions.
Although the matter may seem technical, the Supreme Court’s forthcoming ruling holds the potential to shape the landscape of discrimination cases where workers allege discriminatory transfers.
The specific focus of the case, as outlined by the Supreme Court, revolves around whether job transfers lacking a “significant disadvantage” to workers can still serve as grounds for a discrimination lawsuit.
During the proceedings, several justices expressed broader concerns about the notion that bias lawsuits should only proceed if a worker experiences material injuries. Justice Brett Kavanaugh voiced his skepticism, stating, “The idea that treating people differently could not be a harm and not be discrimination, I don’t get that.”
Justice Neil Gorsuch challenged the requirement of material harm, suggesting it had no basis in the text of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He remarked, “It’s a whole different, extra-textual layer that’s going to weed out a bunch of claims based on a judge’s sensibilities of how bad is bad enough.”
In defense of the city’s position, Robert Loeb argued that Title VII necessitates a material impact on working conditions for a discrimination lawsuit, emphasizing, “It’s not a high bar, but there must be something more than personal preferences or the particular sensitivities of the employee.”
While some justices expressed skepticism toward the city’s stance, Justice Samuel Alito suggested that certain workplace decisions, such as office assignments, may be too trivial to support bias claims.
Brian Wolfman, representing Muldrow, countered by asserting that discrimination itself, under Title VII, constitutes a violation, irrespective of its specific effects on workers. He argued against the requirement to show tangible harm.
Muldrow’s case is supported by the Biden administration, which filed an amicus brief, endorsing a broad application of Title VII. Aimee Brown from the U.S. Solicitor General’s office asserted that discriminatory transfers always violate the law as they inherently involve a change in working conditions.
Muldrow alleges that she was transferred from an intelligence unit due to her gender, with the city contending that such transfers are routine. The case, titled Muldrow v. St. Louis, is set to have a substantial impact on the interpretation and application of workplace bias laws.
