ST. LOUIS — A groundbreaking ruling from the Supreme Court has roots in St. Louis. The April ruling in Jatonya Clayborn Muldrow v. City of St. Louis affects workers across the country.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Title VII of the Civil Rights Act bars employers from discriminating in decisions like lateral transfers, without requiring employees to show that the discriminatory decision caused a “significant” disadvantage.
If you believe you’ve been discriminated against by your employer on the job, this ruling changes how you could make a claim.
Muldrow v. St. Louis is centered on a Title VII violation claim.
5 On Your Side met with a legal expert from Saint Louis University to break down what Title VII says.
Professor Marcia McCormick told 5 on Your Side, “Title VII is the Federal law that prohibits discrimination in the workplace and most private workplaces, and in most public sector workplaces, on the basis of sex, race, national origin, color, and religion.”
Officer Muldrow worked with St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department in the Intelligence Division. But, she was transferred out of that division by her superior because of her sex, she alleged. Muldrow kept the same rank and same pay, but her duties were significantly different.
McCormick said, “... she wasn't given the same level of responsibility. She wasn't connected with the Federal Bureau of Investigation. She didn't have a car that was provided and things like that and when she was transferred she also had to engage in patrol duties in addition to some of her supervisory roles, and she also had to work sometimes on the weekend instead of having... regular hours.”
Before this case went to Supreme Court, it was heard in the U.S. Eighth Circuit Court.
The circuit court ruled in favor of St. Louis Police Department, claiming it was not sufficient that the transfer decisions affected the “conditions” of Officer Muldrow's employment. Instead, Muldrow had to also establish that either her reassignment or her denied transfer request imposed “a material employment disadvantage.”
When the case moved on to the Supreme Court, the court found that the text of Title VII does not require an employee to prove a 'standard' of disadvantage when bringing forth a claim.
The Deputy Director of the Women's Rights Project with the American Civil Liberties Union, Ming-Qi Chu, explains the ruling to our reporter. Chu says, "In the in the past, many courts have said, 'if it doesn't affect something like pay, hiring or promotion', then it's not enough to bring a claim under Title VII."
Chu adds, "But, now, under this decision, the upshot is that employers can be held accountable for discrimination, not just in decisions like hiring and firing, but also in the many day-to-day decisions that make up a huge part of our experience at work... like decisions about schedules and job assignments and working conditions." She says, "That's really an enormous victory for workers and for fairness in the workplace."
We reached out to the city of St. Louis to get their reaction to the ruling. The city's outside counsel, Robert Loeb, provided 5 On Your Side with a statement.
Loeb wrote, “We are pleased that the Supreme Court has retained a “some harm” requirement for Title VII claims, and the City looks forward to showing on remand why Plaintiff in this case cannot meet that standard. The standard adopted by the Court, requiring some work-related harm, is far from the per se rule, requiring no showing of harm, advanced by the other side and is much closer to that advocated for by the City. The Court’s rejection of that no showing of harm, per se rule is an important ruling for the City and all employers.”
From our knowledge, this case could return to the circuit court level to be tried under the updated Title VII guidelines from the Supreme Court.
To watch 5 On Your Side broadcasts or reports 24/7, 5 On Your Side is always streaming on 5+. Download for free on Roku, Amazon Fire TV or the Apple TV App Store.