The Supreme Court kicked off its new term Monday, and a handful of employment-related cases will be heard.
One case, Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, MO, will consider whether a mandatory job transfer is a discriminatory employment action under federal law. The case involves a female police sergeant who filed a lawsuit against the St. Louis Police Department alleging that she was the victim of sex discrimination when she involuntarily was transferred from one position to another because her supervisor allegedly wanted to hire a man for her job.
“The US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled for the police department, reasoning that Muldrow’s transfer had not resulted in a significant employment disadvantage for her,” according to ScotusBlog.
The case is being evaluated to determine whether the employer’s actions violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 “or whether the law’s reach is limited to employer decisions that cause materially significant disadvantages for employees, such as firing and demotion,” SHRM reported.
Susan Coler, an attorney with Halunen Law in Minneapolis, told the media outlet that the effect of the case could influence employers’ decisions, such as “assigning clients and major projects, appointment to task groups or committees, and job responsibilities that don’t directly impact pay or promotions.”
Whistleblower protections
This term’s docket for the High Court also includes a case, Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC, where the court will decide whether a whistleblower must prove that their employer intended to retaliate against the employee.
“A finding in favor of the plaintiff would maintain the current status of the law,” Coler told SHRM. If, on the other hand, the Supreme Court rules in favor of the company, then whistleblower protections would be weakened, she said.
According to attorneys at Hall Benefits Law, a key takeaway for employers regarding this case is that retaliation can occur, and they should take steps to train managers on how to avoid retaliation.
“Evidence of retaliation may exist in many ways and is not limited to a written decision stating that an employee was fired for whistleblowing. For instance, retaliation may occur if an employer shuns or isolates an employee, excludes them from business meetings, or treats them differently than other employees,” according to the law firm.
The lawyers noted that “employers may be acting in retaliation if they remove an employee’s job responsibilities, fail to give them the information necessary to do their work, or place them on work performance improvement plans that are impossible to achieve.”
