Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Supreme Court weighs whether transfers alone violate Title VII in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis
Summary
At oral argument in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, petitioners urged that an employer’s transfer of an employee because of sex constitutes discrimination under Title VII without a separate showing of material harm; the city argued the statute requires objective, material injury to be actionable. Justices tested hypotheticals about shifts, offices and innocuous distinctions.
The Supreme Court heard arguments in Muldrow v. City of Saint Louis, No. 22193, a case that asks whether an employer’s transfer of an employee because of a protected characteristic — here, sex — is itself an unlawful employment practice under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Petitioner’s counsel told the justices that Jitanya Muldrow was moved from the intelligence division to a post in the Fifth District “because she’s a woman,” and argued that Title VII’s ban on discrimination in “terms, conditions, or privileges” of employment reaches such transfers. “If an employer transfers an employee because of a protected characteristic, that’s discrimination, and it’s prohibited by Title 7,” counsel said, urging reversal and a chance to prove the claim.
The government for the…
Already have an account? Log in
Subscribe to keep reading
Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.
- Unlimited articles
- AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
- Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
- Follow topics and more locations
- 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat