The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case of Jatonya Clayborn Muldrow, a Missouri police sergeant who alleges that she faced discriminatory employment decisions based on her gender. Muldrow, who worked for the St. Louis police department, claims that she was forced out of her role in the intelligence unit, transferred to a different job with less favorable conditions, and denied a requested transfer due to her being a woman. She argues that these actions were taken against her because of her sex, resulting in her being placed in a dead-end job.
The central issue that the Supreme Court will examine is the extent of the protections provided by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for employees who assert that they have been subject to discriminatory transfers. Title VII makes it illegal for private employers or state and local governments to discriminate against individuals in terms of their compensation, conditions, or privileges of employment on the basis of their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Specifically, the court will consider whether Title VII forbids discrimination in transfer decisions without a separate court determination that the transfer caused a significant disadvantage.
The Supreme Court granted the petition in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis on June 30th, in an unsigned order. This case will be heard during the court’s new term, starting in October. Notably, no dissenting opinions were expressed by the justices, indicating a unanimous decision to move forward.
Muldrow had served as a sergeant with the St. Louis Police Department for many years, specifically in the intelligence division from 2008 to 2017. During this time, she worked on public corruption and human trafficking cases, headed the gun crimes unit, and oversaw the gang unit. Described as a dedicated worker, she attained substantial experience in handling violent crime cases.
According to Muldrow’s petition, she began to notice discrepancies in how her supervisor treated her compared to similarly situated male officers. Her supervisor addressed the male officers based on their rank but did not afford her the same acknowledgment. Muldrow’s petition claims that her supervisor opposed “blind transfers,” where an employee is transferred without prior discussion. However, without notice, her supervisor transferred her to the department’s fifth district, citing concerns about the supposed danger associated with her previous role.
Notably, the supervisor also replaced Muldrow with a male officer and transferred the other two female officers in the intelligence division. Although her pay remained the same, there were significant changes to her schedule, responsibilities, workplace environment, and other job requirements and benefits. Previously, she worked regular business hours on weekdays with weekends off. Nevertheless, in the fifth district, she was subjected to a rotating schedule with fewer weekends off. Furthermore, her intelligence and human trafficking duties were taken away, and she was assigned routine tasks associated with basic entry-level police work, rather than the important investigations she had been accustomed to in intelligence.
The transfer from intelligence to the fifth district had other negative consequences for Muldrow as well. While in the intelligence division, she had the opportunity to work directly for the Chief of Police and interact with high-profile individuals. However, in the fifth district, located away from headquarters, she felt isolated and did not have the networking opportunities she previously enjoyed.
Additionally, the transfer required a change in her attire. In intelligence, she could wear plainclothes, but in the fifth district, she was required to wear a uniform, duty belt, and vest. This added an extra 15 to 25 pounds of weight, exacerbating her ongoing back and neck problems resulting from a previous job-related injury. Moreover, the transfer negatively impacted her reputation, as it implied that she had been disciplined for misconduct.
Unsatisfied with the forced transfer, Muldrow attempted to secure a new position within the department as an administrative aide to a captain. However, superior officers communicated to the captain that they would not allow Muldrow to have the position. The administrative aide role, only available to sergeants, was described as high profile, and it offered a consistent schedule with weekends off and additional bonuses.
Muldrow initially filed her lawsuit in state court, citing the fifth district reassignment and the refusal to transfer her to the administrative aide position. The case was later transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, which granted summary judgment in favor of the department. The court believed that, according to the precedent set by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, a discriminatory transfer must result in a material employment disadvantage to be considered an adverse employment action under Title VII.
Upon appeal, the 8th Circuit ruled against Muldrow, stating that the forced transfer and the refusal to transfer did not qualify as adverse employment actions under Title VII.
In support of Muldrow, the Biden administration urged the Supreme Court to clarify whether Title VII’s prohibition against discrimination in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment encompasses situations where a worker experiences a materially significant disadvantage.
As of now, there has been no response from Muldrow’s attorney, Brian Wolfman, or the city’s attorneys, Sheena Hamilton and Robert Mark Loeb, as reported by The Epoch Times.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision to hear Jatonya Clayborn Muldrow’s case highlights the complex issue of discriminatory transfers and the protections afforded to employees under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This case raises important questions about the scope of Title VII and how it applies to employment decisions that may not cause a significant disadvantage but still reflect discriminatory intent. The Court’s ruling in this case will have far-reaching implications for employees who face discriminatory treatment in the workplace.
Source link
