We represent victims of reverse discrimination and anti-DEI whistleblowers

Employment discrimination claims require that workers show some form of harm they suffered due to the biased actions of those around them. This legal element is fairly straightforward when someone alleges that they were fired, or not hired, due to their status within a protected class. However, the situation gets more complicated when the employer action is less drastic, such as when a worker is shifted to a different role or put on a performance improvement plan.

A unanimous Supreme Court decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis held that there is a broad definition of what constitutes an adverse job action justifying legal relief. Jatonya Muldrow, a sergeant in the St. Louis Police Department’s Intelligence Division, had prestigious duty that included being named as a Task Force Officer by the FBI. As part of this position, she had a regular weekday schedule and access to an FBI vehicle.  

When a new commander took over, Muldrow was replaced by a male officer. While she was not fired and earned the same salary, she was given a different schedule with more weekend work, and lost her status as Task Force Officer, as well as the privileges associated with that position. Despite the negative changes, the City of St. Louis claimed that Muldrow could not succeed in a discrimination claim because she had only experienced a lateral transfer. 

However, the Supreme Court ruled that a plaintiff alleging status-based discrimination under Title VII need not show a “significant” or “materially adverse” employment action. Instead, “some harm” to the terms, conditions or privileges of employment is sufficient. This means that an employee could be entitled to relief due to scheduling changes, loss of privileges or placement on a performance improvement plan (PIP). There are instances where someone is put on a PIP as a pretext for a discriminatory act. Likewise, changes that make the workplace for difficult could be a way to drive out an employee while trying to hide that the true motive is illegal bias.  

Documentation is critical if you think changes to your job are rooted in discrimination. Kardell Law Group can review the facts of your case and advise if there is some legal recourse based on the decision in Muldrow.