COP SWAP CHOPPED? U.S. Supreme Court Rules Lateral Transfer Was Discriminatory « Law Offices of Timothy Bowles | Top Employment Law Firm in Los Angeles

COP SWAP CHOPPED?
U.S. Supreme Court Rules Lateral Transfer Was Discriminatory

The U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Muldrow v. St. Louis has opened employers to discrimination charges for “lateral transfers” (moves from one part of operations to another) even without significant harm to the employee.

A new head of the St. Louis Police Department’s Intelligence Division transferred a plainclothes female sergeant with an outstanding record and years of experience to a uniformed job supervising patrol officers so he could install a male replacement. The transferred officer lost no wages or rank.  Nevertheless, she sued the City for sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) because the new position took away the prestigious responsibilities, schedule, and perks of the prior position.

The trial court and Court of Appeals upheld her transfer, finding it did not produce a “materially significant disadvantage.”  The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed.  It ruled that Title VII has no requirement that an action affecting the terms and conditions of employment, taken for a prohibited reason, such as gender, have a “significant” effect.  It therefore reversed the lower court rulings, giving employers a guide to what kind of transfers are discriminatory:

“The transfer must have left her worse off, but need not have left her significantly so. And [the sergeant’s] allegations, if properly preserved and supported, meet that test with room to spare. Recall her principal allegations. She was moved from a plainclothes job in a prestigious specialized division giving her substantial responsibility over priority investigations and frequent opportunity to work with police commanders. She was moved to a uniformed job supervising one district’s patrol officers, in which she was less involved in high-visibility matters and primarily performed administrative work. Her schedule became less regular, often requiring her to work weekends; and she lost her take-home car. If those allegations are proved, she was left worse off several times over. It does not matter, as the courts below thought . . . that her rank and pay remained the same, or that she still could advance to other jobs.”

This ruling is a caution to all employers to avoid transferring employees to a new position against their will if the employee will be “worse off.”  They should apply the same consideration when re-assigning an employee returning from a protected leave, such as California’s Family Rights Act (CFRA) or the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).

Take-Aways:  

To avoid a charge of discrimination, employers should scrutinize any planned lateral transfers that an employee opposes to ensure the person will not be worse off.

For further information, please contact Tim Bowles, Cindy Bamforth or Helena Kobrin.

See also:

Helena Kobrin
May 10, 2024

Contact Us

If you are an employer facing possible litigation, or have an employee issue on which you need immediate guidance, call us to set up a consultation, or submit your message.

NOTE: Use of this website does not make one a client of the Law Offices of Timothy Bowles (“Firm” or “Bowles Law”). Establishing an attorney-client relationship and the confidentiality that comes with it depends on the Firm’s prior confirmation that no factor, including any conflict of interest (for example, our representation of another party adverse to you), exists to prevent that establishment. If you have confidential information that you would like to provide a Bowles Law attorney, please communicate directly to one of our attorneys, in person, by telephone, email, fax or other written means. Do not use this website to offer or communicate confidential information about any legal matter.

    This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.