The Supreme Court Sides with Civil Rights More Often than Not – Mary T. O’Sullivan

by Mary T. O’Sullivan, MSOL, contributing writer, business leadership

“Title VII makes it unlawful for an employer to “discriminate against any individual with respect to . . . terms [and] conditions . . . of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”  –  U.S. Constitution

On this July 4^th weekend, it’s important to keep our rights the Founding Fathers fought for in the forefront of our thinking. It’s easy to forget the workplace rules that keep employment fair in the United States. Often there is fear involved in complaining, or in bringing a case against an employer. The most recent cases that have come before the Supreme Court with regards to workplace fairness have modified the criteria needed to file against an employer abusing people’s rights.

While there is much despair among many workers regarding recent Executive Orders, DEI, LBGTQ+,  and other Civil Rights dictates, the Supreme Court has shown itself to be supportive of notable employment law cases. In June of 2025, in the case of Ames versus Ohio Department of Youth Services, the Court unanimously ruled that the plaintiff, Ames, had been the victim of reverse discrimination when she was demoted and lost pay when a gay man replaced her, a straight woman. The 9-0 ruling showed that when the court is presented with solid, documented evidence, blatant discriminatory employment practices will be struck down.

It may not seem obvious given the court’s current conservative make up, however, their track record is clear on issues of proper interpretation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In an April 2024 ruling, a similar case was ruled on by the court, with another unanimous ruling for the plaintiff, Jatonya Clayborn Muldrow, who sued her employer, The City of St. Louis, for sex discrimination. The case once again revolved around an involuntary transfer, even though, unlike the Ames case,  her rank and pay remained the same. The transfer resulted in loss of overtime pay, a different work schedule, and lack of prestige, as she was moved from the City’s Police Force Intelligence unit to a lesser policing unit, putting her back in uniform rather than in street clothes worn by Intelligence officers.

Muldrow was a female Sergeant with the police department from 2008-2017, when, in 2017, a new commander took over. As is often the case under new management, the arbitrary decision to move her out of her department and replace her with someone else, in this case a man, was made. Muldrow then requested a transfer to be the administrative aide to the Captain in the Department’s Second District, and was denied that transfer. Although she sued in state court, the city moved the case to the US Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. This court ruled that the case lacked merit because Muldrow “did not suffer a materially adverse action and thus failed to satisfy the “adverse employment action” as stated in the Civil Rights Act. Upon appeal the United States Court of Appeals Eighth District, agreed with the lower court.

Undeterred, Muldrow appealed to the US Supreme Court. In 2022, the Court accepted her case for consideration, and a final ruling was issued on April 24, 2024. In its ruling, the Court held that “an employee alleging a discriminatory job transfer must show that the transfer inflicted “some harm with respect to an identifiable term or condition of employment,” but, that such harm “need not be significant” [in order] to violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.” In other words, a plaintiff belonging to a majority group, similar to the Ames case who was a straight, white woman, does not need to prove anything different from a minority group plaintiff to establish a discrimination case under Title VII.  By changing the wording from “significant” to “some”, the bar was lowered for filing discrimination claims, making it easier for workers facing unfair transfers or demotions to sue under Title VII and prevail.

While employers may face increased threat of discrimination suits, they may also be more willing to settle or to retract their illegal actions. In Muldrow’s case, she was eventually transferred back to the Intelligence Division of the St. Louis Police Department. The ruling also may increase the ability to sue under other discriminatory conditions such as hostile work environment, as well as the controversial HR policy of “constructive discharge” where an employer makes a person’s job so miserable, the person quits. The practice of arbitrary transfers is also impacted by this decision.

The ruling determines that pay and rank play no part in discrimination. Loss of perks such as a company car or electronic devices, working on visible, important projects, or forcing less flexible work hours can also be considered discriminatory acts under the Muldrow ruling. The caveat for employees is that this ruling only applies when the employee is a member of a protected class as defined by Title VII; that is race, color, creed, national origin, religion, gender, disability, age, pregnancy, or sexual orientation.

However, when an employee is subject to an involuntary transfer, a member of a protected class now has a legitimate case for complaint. If the organization’s legal and ethics departments are not aware of this ruling, employees seeking legal counsel in such a case will most likely experience a positive outcome.

Muldrow made it easier for workers to challenge unfair job moves based on discrimination, even if those changes don’t hurt their paychecks or job status—just like getting moved to a worse viewing spot at the Bristol July 4^th parade for no good reason.

“Employers should carefully review internal transfers, especially supervisor-directed internal transfers, and ensure that internal transfers are not made based on an individual’s protected status.”  – Perkins Coie, Law Firm

___

Connect with Mary:

www.encoreexecutivecoaching.com

Buy My Book

https://www.linkedin.com/in/marytosullivan

Read all Mary’s columns here: https://2×8.ea2.myftpupload.com/mary-t-osullivan-msol-pcc-shrm-scp/

Mary T. O’Sullivan, Master of Science, Organizational Leadership, International Coaching Federation Professional Certified Coach, Society of Human Resource Management, “Senior Certified Professional. Graduate Certificate in Executive and Professional Career Coaching, University of Texas at Dallas.

Member, Beta Gamma Sigma, the International Honor Society.

Advanced Studies in Education from Montclair University, SUNY Oswego and Syracuse University.

Mary is also a certified Six Sigma Specialist, Contract Specialist, IPT Leader and holds a Certificate in Essentials of Human Resource Management from SHRM.

 

Buy My Book