Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri

United States Supreme Court case

Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri

Supreme Court of the United States

Argued December 6, 2023

Full case name| Jatonya 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|

* Summary judgment granted, No. 4:18-CV-02150-AGF, 2020 WL 5505113 (E.D. Mo. September 11, 2020)
* Affirmed, 30 F.4th 680 (8th Cir. 2022)
* Cert. granted, 143 S. Ct. 2686 (2023)

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

Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri (Docket 22-193) is a pending United States Supreme Court case regarding Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and whether its protections apply to job transfers, even where the transfer did not result in a "significant disadvantage."

It came from a 2022 decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirming the trial court decision that a transfer must result in a "materially significant disadvantage" to be actionable under Title VII.

## Background[edit]

### Legislation and prior case law[edit]

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 advocated passage of the Civil Rights Act 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-'90s, plaintiffs had to prove that the adverse employment action in the prima facie case was "materially adverse" [3] Courts nationwide refused to recognize lateral transfer decisions as being covered by Title VII because they were not "materially adverse" actions. This meant that under all employment discrimination statutes if a job transfer resulted in the same pay and benefits, it was not actionable.[4]

Not all circuit courts used the same test, but all circuits required some level of material adversity for transfer decisions to be actionable. The strictest among these was the Fifth Circuit's "ultimate employment decision" standard, which limited Title VII's coverage to claims involving hiring, firing, compensation, and leave.[5] For example, this meant allegations that black employees were forced to work outside and without water, while white employees worked indoors in air conditioning, were not actionable because it was not an "ultimate employment decision."[6]

This material adversity standard was criticized by academics and judges, with increasing calls to overturn precedents holding that lateral transfers were not actionable in the 2010s.[7] In 2016, then a judge on the D.C. Circuit, Justice Kavanaugh wrote a concurring opinion stating that "[a]ll discriminatory transfers (and discriminatory denials of requested transfers) are actionable under Title VII."[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.[10][5]

### Case background[edit]

Muldrow is a sergeant with the St. Louis Police Department. From 2008 to 2017, she worked in the Department's Intelligence Division. Muldrow was forced to transfer to 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[edit]

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[edit]

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]

## References[edit]

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. ^ a b "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.