By Bill Swan, Principal Consultant
If any part of your human resource practice involves job reassignments or restructuring departments, a Supreme Court decision in April has significant implications that should be noted and understood. While employers can still reassign job duties, they must now consider the impact on employees more carefully.
In Muldrow v. City of St. Louis (U.S. Supreme Court, April 17, 2024), a plainclothes female police officer was transferred to a new position with the same pay but different hours and duties. From 2008 to 2017, Sergeant Jatonya Clayborn Muldrow worked in the Intelligence Division, investigating corruption and human trafficking, led the Guns Crime Unit, and served as a deputized Task Force Officer with the FBI. She had weekends off, drove an unmarked car as a take-home vehicle, and could pursue investigations outside of St. Louis.
In 2017, however, her new supervisor, against her wishes, reassigned her to a uniformed role, supervising the daily activities of patrol officers. Her pay and rank remained the same, but she lost her take-home unmarked vehicle, could no longer investigate matters outside of St. Louis, and no longer had weekends off. Muldrow sued, alleging sex discrimination.
Job Reassignments: Debating “Significant” Change in Working Conditions
A lower court granted summary judgment in favor of the city, claiming she had failed to show that the transfer resulted in a “significant” change in working conditions or a “material employment disadvantage.” The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision, requiring her to demonstrate that the transfer was a “materially significant disadvantage” and concluding that she had only experienced “minor changes in working conditions.” Muldrow then took her case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
By a unanimous 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court disagreed, ruling that a worker “does not have to show … that the harm incurred was ‘significant’ or serious.” Writing for the court, Justice Kagan quoted Title VII, stating that it is unlawful “to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to their compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s…sex.”
There was no dispute that the terms and conditions of her job changed, and that was all that needed to be proven. There is no requirement to substantiate a degree, level, or other measurable. To have required the plaintiff to prove ‘significance’ was adding language to the statute that was not there. Muldrow only needed to show that her employment terms and conditions were altered.
the Implications for HR and Job Reassignments
This Supreme Court decision lowers the threshold for employees to prove discrimination in job reassignments and transfers. Previously, employees had to show that a job change had a “significant” impact. The Muldrow case established that the impact does not need to be “significant” for it to be discriminatory.
The case heightens the importance of diligently ensuring all employees are treated fairly and equitably. HR professionals need to prevent and address discriminatory practices, including those that can occur during job reassignments and transfers.
Navigate Job Reassignments with FIT HR
It’s important to remember that employees have rights, including a say in their positions. The Muldrow decision could lead to increased litigation, especially in organizations that still operate under the belief that any job can be reassigned or changed without considering the employee’s preferences or the impact of the change. At FIT HR, we recognize that organizational changes can be challenging. We’re here to help. If your organization needs support, we’d love to discuss your challenges and explore how we could assist. Contact us today to start a conversation.