How the New Standard of Harm Under Muldrow Impacts Employer Defenses to Title VII Claims and DEI Initiatives

Description

On Apr. 17, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis lowered the bar that plaintiffs must meet to prevail in Title VII discrimination claims which requires they be able to show that the employer took an adverse employment action against them because of the employee's protected class.

In Muldrow, the Court unanimously rejected the "materially significant disadvantage" standard used by most circuits when determining whether the level of harm suffered by the employee in a job transfer was adequate to establish an adverse employment action. Rather, the Court held that a plaintiff may proceed with a Title VII claim if they can show "some injury" resulting from the employment action. Although the case specifically addressed lateral job transfers, employment counsel and clients can expect that plaintiffs will likely argue that the new standard be applied to any allegedly discriminatory action that causes the plaintiff some harm.

In addition to causing employers concern about increased Title VII litigation, the Muldrow decision may provide an opening to challenge corporate DEI programs. Although DEI programs were not addressed in this case, opponents of DEI may attempt to use Muldrow's reasoning to challenge corporate DEI initiatives claiming that exclusions from programs intended to support underrepresented groups have a negative impact on terms and conditions of employment.

Listen as our expert panel provides an in-depth look at the Muldrow decision and its resulting impact on litigating Title VII discrimination claims and possible effect on employer DEI initiatives. The panel will also address best practices for assisting employer clients with proactively assessing policies and procedures to mitigate risk and limit vulnerability in Title VII actions.