US Supreme Court opens up the floodgates to more bias lawsuits

The scenario: A female staffer consistently received positive reviews. In fact, her supervisor described her as a “workhorse.”

When the woman began reporting to a different male manager, however, her new boss didn’t think she could handle the job because the work was dangerous. She was transferred to a different department and replaced by a male employee.

Although the woman’s new job had the same pay and benefits as did her previous position, it wasn’t as prestigious because she had less contact with senior-level managers. In addition, a car that had been provided to her was taken away. And she went from a regular daytime shift to an irregular rotating schedule.

Legal challenge: The woman sued for gender discrimination.

The ruling: The employer lost. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned two other federal courts that had dismissed the woman’s lawsuit because she couldn’t prove her transfer was a tangible employment action.

In overruling the other judges, the Supreme Court said the woman’s forced transfer was, in fact, a change in the terms and conditions of her employment, noting that she was assigned to a less prestigious role, no longer had access to a car and was moved to a rotating schedule.

The skinny: Get ready for a big jump in the number of employment discrimination lawsuits in the U.S. This ruling by the top court will open the floodgates for employees to sue for bias even when their pay and benefits didn’t change.

Dig deeper: Think twice before making someone take a less desirable job, even one with similar pay, because the worker can now initiate a costly lawsuit if he or she thinks the forced transfer was discriminatory.

Cite: Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 22-193, 4/17/24.

(From the April 26, 2024, issue of HR Managers Legal Alert for Supervisors. To start your no-obligation trial subscription to the publication right now, please click here.)