Jatonya Clayborn Muldrow was a police officer for the City of St. Louis. From 2008 through 2017, Muldrow worked in the Department’s specialized Intelligence Division, a job that came with perks, responsibilities, and preferable scheduling. In 2017, she was transferred against her will and replaced with a male police officer. That officer, according to testimony from the Intelligence Division commander who made the transfer, seemed a better fit for the Division’s “very dangerous” work. The same commander also had a habit of referring to Muldrow as “Mrs.,” rather than “Sergeant.”
With her transfer, Muldrow ceased working with high-ranking officials, lost access to an unmarked take-home vehicle and had a more unpredictable schedule, which included weekend shifts.
Muldrow alleged that she had been discriminated against on the basis of sex with respect to the terms and conditions of her employment. The Eastern District of Missouri granted summary judgment to the City, and the Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding that Muldrow had failed to demonstrate that the transfer had caused her a “materially significant disadvantage.” Because the transfer “did not result in a reduction to her title, salary, or benefits” and had caused “only minor changes in working conditions,” the Court held, her lawsuit could not proceed.
However, in a unanimous decision for Muldrow, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the lower courts had erred in requiring Muldrow to demonstrate that she had suffered a harm that was “significant” or otherwise heightened above the statutory language. The language of Title VII makes it unlawful for an employer “to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s sex.”
Justice Kagan wrote in this decision: “To demand ‘significance’ is to add words – and significant words, as it were – to the statute Congress enacted. It is to impose a new requirement on a Title VII claimant, so that the law as applied demands something more of her than the law as written.”
The Court rejected the City’s textual, policy, and precedential arguments regarding the standard imposed by the Eighth Circuit. The judgment of the Eighth Circuit was vacated and remanded for further proceedings. Justices Alito, Kavanaugh and Thomas all wrote opinions concurring in the judgment.
Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, 144 S.Ct. 967 (2024).