Muldrow v. City of St. Louis

Last updated

Muldrow v. City of St. Louis
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued December 6, 2023
Decided April 17, 2024
Full case nameJatonya Clayborn Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, et al.
Docket no. 22-193
Argument Oral argument
Reargument Reargument
Opinion announcement Opinion announcement
Case history
Prior
Questions presented
Does Title VII prohibit discrimination in transfer decisions absent a separate court determination that the transfer decision caused a significant disadvantage?
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Neil Gorsuch  · Brett Kavanaugh
Amy Coney Barrett  · Ketanji Brown Jackson
Case opinions
MajorityKagan, joined by Roberts, Sotomayor, Gorsuch, Barrett, Jackson
ConcurrenceThomas (in judgment)
ConcurrenceAlito (in judgment)
ConcurrenceKavanaugh (in judgment)

Muldrow v. City of St. Louis (Docket 22-193) was a United States Supreme Court decision which held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protected against discriminatory job transfers, even where the transfer did not result in a significant disadvantage.

Contents

Prior to the Supreme Court's decision, the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit had affirmed the US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri's decision that a transfer must result in a "materially significant disadvantage" to be actionable under Title VII.

Background

Legislation and prior case law

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed into law amid the civil rights movement. It had been proposed by President John F. Kennedy as a means to combat racial discrimination and racial segregation in the aftermath of the Birmingham campaign. After Kennedy's assassination in November 1963, his successor Lyndon B. Johnson secured its passage in the following year. [1]

Among several provisions in the law is Title VII, which covers equal employment opportunities. Its key provision, codified at 42 U.S.C.   § 2000e-2(a)(1) , states that it is illegal to discriminate "with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."

In employment discrimination cases where the only evidence of discrimination is indirect, courts evaluate the claim under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework. To have an actionable claim under Title VII, and other employment discrimination statutes, the plaintiff must make out a prima facie (on its face) case of discrimination. This requires a plaintiff to show "(1) she is a member of a protected group; (2) she was subjected to an adverse employment decision; (3) she was qualified for the position; and (4) she was replaced by a person outside the protected class, or similarly situated non-protected employees were treated more favorably." [2] If the plaintiff can meet these factors, they have shown an inference of discrimination, which the employer can rebut.

By the mid 1990s, plaintiffs were expected to prove that the discriminatory employment action was "materially adverse" to qualify for Title VII protections, a standard which was interpreted to exclude lateral transfers, in which one retains similar pay and benefits while shifted into a different position. [3] [4]

Under the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit's "ultimate employment decision" standard, plaintiffs could only bring Title VII claims in cases of discriminatory hiring, firing, compensation, and/or placement on leave. [5] In 2017, the District Court for Western Louisiana applied this standard to deny Title VII protections to an employee alleging racial and religious discrimination in punishments for lateness and access to air conditioning. [6]

Responding to academic and judicial criticism of the material adversity standard, Judge Brett Kavanaugh of the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit wrote a concurring opinion in Ortiz-Diaz v. US Department of Housing and Urban Development , arguing that "all discriminatory transfers (and discriminatory denials of requested transfers) are actionable under Title VII." [7] [8] In a 2021 opinion by Chief Judge Jeffrey Sutton, the Sixth Circuit became the first circuit to hold that lateral transfers can meet the adverse employment standard. [9] The D.C. Circuit followed suit in 2022, and the Fifth Circuit overruled its "ultimate employment decision" standard in 2023. [5] [10]

Case background

Jatonya Clayborn Muldrow is a sergeant with the St. Louis Police Department. From 2008 to 2017, she worked in the Department's Intelligence Division. In 2017, the Intelligence Division's new commander transferred Muldrow into the department's Fifth District, which had the same pay and title but changed her schedule, overtime opportunities, prestige, and comfort of work clothing (she previously could wear plainclothes but now had to wear a uniform, duty belt, and vest). Muldrow's replacement at the Intelligence Division was a man. Muldrow was then denied a transfer to become the administrative aide to the Captain in the Department's Second District. Muldrow was eventually transferred back to the Intelligence Division.

Lower court history

Muldrow sued the Department and the Police Captain in Missouri state court for violations of Title VII, as well as state law. The Department removed the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The trial court granted summary judgment to the Department because it found Muldrow did not suffer a materially adverse action and thus failed to satisfy the "adverse employment action" prong in the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework. [11] The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed. [12]

Supreme Court

On August 29, 2022, Muldrow petitioned the Supreme Court to hear her case. On June 30, 2023, the court granted certiorari. [13] The case was argued on December 6, 2023. [14] On behalf of Ms. Muldrow, the case was argued by Brian Wolfman, Director of the Georgetown Law Appellate Courts Immersion Clinic, who split the argument time with Deputy Solicitor General Aimee Brown. [15] Robert Loeb, a partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe argued the case for St. Louis Police Department. [16]

During oral argument, a majority of the justices seemed to lean towards Ms. Muldrow's argument. [17] On April 24, 2024, the Supreme court vacated the Eighth circuit's decision. [18]

Related Research Articles

Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, 523 U.S. 75 (1998), is a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court. The case arose out of a suit for sex discrimination by a male oil-rig worker, who claimed that he was repeatedly subjected to sexual harassment by his male co-workers with the acquiescence of his employer. The Court held that the protection of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against workplace discrimination "because of... sex" applied to harassment in the workplace between members of the same sex.

Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229 (1976), was a United States Supreme Court case that established that laws that have a racially discriminatory effect but were not adopted to advance a racially discriminatory purpose are valid under the U.S. Constitution.

Disparate impact in the law of the United States refers to practices in employment, housing, and other areas that adversely affect one group of people of a protected characteristic more than another, even though rules applied by employers or landlords are formally neutral. Although the protected classes vary by statute, most federal civil rights laws consider race, color, religion, national origin, and sex to be protected characteristics, and some laws include disability status and other traits as well.

Burlington Northern & Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006), is a US labor law case of the United States Supreme Court on sexual harassment and retaliatory discrimination. It was a landmark case for retaliation claims. It set a precedent for claims which could be considered retaliatory under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In this case the standard for retaliation against a sexual harassment complainant was revised to include any adverse employment decision or treatment that would be likely to dissuade a "reasonable worker" from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.

Sexual orientation discrimination is discrimination based on a person's sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or pregnancy.

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), is a US employment law case by the United States Supreme Court regarding the burdens and nature of proof in proving a Title VII case and the order in which plaintiffs and defendants present proof. It was the seminal case in the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework.

Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618 (2007), is an employment discrimination decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. Employers cannot be sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 over race or gender pay discrimination if the claims are based on decisions made by the employer 180 days ago or more. Justice Alito held for the five-justice majority that each paycheck received did not constitute a discrete discriminatory act, even if it was affected by a prior decision outside the time limit. Ledbetter's claim of the “paycheck accrual rule” was rejected. The decision did not prevent plaintiffs from suing under other laws, like the Equal Pay Act, which has a three-year deadline for most sex discrimination claims, or 42 U.S.C. 1981, which has a four-year deadline for suing over race discrimination.

Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557 (2009), is a United States labor law case of the United States Supreme Court on unlawful discrimination through disparate impact under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust, 487 U.S. 977 (1988), is a United States Supreme Court case on United States labor law, concerning proof of disparate treatment under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

<i>Hayden v. County of Nassau</i> American legal case

In Hayden v. County of Nassau, 180 F.3d 42, the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of a suit brought by White and Latino police officers alleging violations of the Equal Protection Clause and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993), was a US labor law case before the United States Supreme Court on the burden of proof and the relevance of intent for race discrimination.

Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (1981), is a United States labor law case of the United States Supreme Court.

Disparate treatment is one kind of unlawful discrimination in US labor law. In the United States, it means unequal behavior toward someone because of a protected characteristic under Title VII of the United States Civil Rights Act. This contrasts with disparate impact, where an employer applies a neutral rule that treats everyone equally in form, but has a disadvantageous effect on some people of a protected characteristic compared to others.

Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court on the issues of prescriptive sex discrimination and employer liability for sex discrimination. The employee, Ann Hopkins, sued her former employer, the accounting firm Price Waterhouse. She argued that the firm denied her partnership because she did not fit the partners' idea of what a female employee should look and act like. The employer failed to prove that it would have denied her partnership anyway, and the Court held that constituted sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Bundy v. Jackson, 641 F.2d 934, was a D.C. Circuit opinion, written by Judge Skelly Wright, that held that workplace sexual harassment could constitute employment discrimination under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993), is a US labor law case in which the Supreme Court of the United States clarified the definition of a "hostile" or "abusive" work environment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the Court held that a determination about whether a work environment is hostile or abusive requires a consideration of all relevant circumstances.

Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda, 590 U.S. ___ (2020), is a landmark United States Supreme Court civil rights case which ruled that under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 employees could not be discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

<i>Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College</i> U.S. court case

Kimberly Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College, 853 F.3d 339, was a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in which the Court held that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The ruling made the Seventh Circuit the first federal appeals court to find that sexual orientation is a protected class under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. 644 (2020), is a landmark United States Supreme Court civil rights decision in which the Court held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees against discrimination because of sexuality or gender identity.

Babb v. Wilkie, 589 U.S. ___ (2020), is a case of the United States Supreme Court in which the justices considered the scope of protections for federal employees in the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. Specifically, the Court ruled that plaintiffs only need to prove that age was a motivating factor in the decision in order to sue. However, establishing but for causation is still necessary in determining the appropriate remedy. If a plaintiff can establish that the age was the determining factor in the employment outcome, they may be entitled to compensatory damages or other relief relating to the result of the employment decision.

References

  1. ↑ Wilkins, Roy; Mitchell, Clarence; King, Martin Luther Jr; Lewis, John; Humphrey, Hubert; Parks, Gordon; Ellison, Ralph; Rustin, Bayard; Warren, Earl (October 10, 2014). "Civil Rights Era (1950–1963) - The Civil Rights Act of 1964: A Long Struggle for Freedom | Exhibitions - Library of Congress". www.loc.gov. Retrieved May 14, 2020.
  2. ↑ "Regan v. Faurecia Auto. Seating, Inc., 679 F.3d 475, 26 A.D. Cas. 257, 114 Fair. Empl. Prac. Cas. 1651, 45 NDLR P 56 (6th Cir. 2012)".
  3. ↑ "Crady v. Liberty Nat'l Bank & Tr. Co., 993 F.2d 132 (7th Cir. 1993)" . Retrieved February 14, 2024.
  4. ↑ "Kocsis v. Multi-Care Management, Inc., 97 F.3d 876 (6th Cir. 1996)" . Retrieved February 14, 2024.
  5. 1 2 "Hamilton v. Dall. Cty., 79 F.4th 494, 498 (5th Cir. 2023)" (PDF). Retrieved February 17, 2024.
  6. ↑ "Peterson v. Linear Controls Inc., Civil Action No. 16-00725 (W.D. La. Sep. 5, 2017)" . Retrieved February 17, 2024.
  7. ↑ Lidge, III, Ernest (1999). "The Meaning of Discrimination: Why Courts Have Erred in Requiring Employment Discrimination Plaintiffs to Prove That the Employer's Action Was Materially Adverse or Ultimate". U. Kan. L. Rev. 47: 333. Retrieved February 16, 2024.
  8. ↑ "Ortiz-Diaz v. U.S. Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 867 F.3d 70 (D.C. Cir. 2016)" . Retrieved December 8, 2023.
  9. ↑ "Threat v. City of Cleveland, 6 F.4th 672 (6th Cir. 2021)" (PDF). Retrieved February 17, 2024.
  10. ↑ "Chambers v. District of Columbia, 457 F.4th 870 (D.C. Cir. 2022)" (PDF). Retrieved February 17, 2024.
  11. ↑ Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, No. 4:18-CV-02150-AGF, 2020 WL 5505113 (E.D. Mo. Sept. 11, 2020)
  12. ↑ 30 F.4th 680 (8th Cir. 2022)
  13. ↑ Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, 143 S. Ct. 2686 (2023).
  14. ↑ Howe, Amy (October 12, 2023). "Purde pharma, tax cases headline December argument session". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved October 13, 2023.
  15. ↑ "Brian Woflman Faculty Page" . Retrieved December 8, 2023.
  16. ↑ "Bob Loeb Biography Page". Orrick. Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe. Retrieved December 8, 2023.
  17. ↑ Liptak, Adam (December 6, 2023). "Supreme Court Justices Lean Towards Police Officer in Job Bias Case". New York Times. Retrieved December 8, 2023.
  18. ↑ "Supreme Court of the United States Decision 22-193" (PDF).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.