What is the impact of Muldrow v. City of St. Louis on discrimination claims under Title VII?

The U.S. Supreme Court decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, made it easier for employees to pursue discrimination claims. The court unanimously decided employees need not suffer “significant” harm to state a claim of discrimination under Title VII and rejected the high level of proof many courts required.

The court’s finding has resulted in a new level of proof required in a Title VII case - the majority stated that while plaintiffs are not required to show “significant” harm, they must nevertheless show they suffered “some” harm.

Unfortunately, the Court did not define “some” harm. In a concurring opinion, Justice Samuel Alito stated “I have no idea what this means...” something that many might be thinking.

Given the lack of clarity on the lowered standard, courts will have to figure out exactly what harm plaintiffs need to establish to successfully challenge an employer’s allegedly discriminatory act.

It’s also unclear whether the decision is limited only to job transfers, which was the specific issue being decided in Muldrow.

What is clear is that employers will now have to face Title VII challenges involving employment decisions that may have been dismissed in the past because they did not cause “significant” harm to a plaintiff. As a result, more Title VII cases will likely survive initial pleadings.

“Some” harm is now all it takes. What the court didn’t explain is exactly what type of employment decisions could result in some harm.

On a positive note for employers defending Title VII claims - Muldrow left intact the requirement to show an action was taken because of a protected characteristic. Employers should carefully review standard employment practices that involve modifications that impact an employee’s position – such as decisions about hybrid work, schedule flexibility, minor role adjustments, and transfers -- to ensure that the bases for the changes are well-documented and not based on a protected characteristic.

Although the court changed the standard for discrimination claims, the higher “significant harm” standard still applies for retaliation claims.

For help in navigating Title VII claims in the post-Muldrow era, connect with a Littler attorney.