Supreme Court Update: Muldrow v. St. Louis
Author
Upcoming Events
Related News
Supreme Court Update: Muldrow v. St. Louis
COUNTY NEXUS
In a season of acute workforce shortages, the ability to make lateral transfers without fear of legal action is an important tool for county governments to ensure we have appropriate staffing to meet our various responsibilities for safeguarding the safety, health and wellbeing of our residents.
BACKGROUND
In this case, an employee alleged that her lateral transfer within the St. Louis Police Department was motivated by gender bias and constituted discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. However, the transfer did not impact her pay or title. This case involved a circuit split over the question of whether lateral employment transfers constitute an adverse employment action or if tangible harm must be evident.
NACo ADVOCACY
In a Local Government Legal Center amicus brief submitted in support of the respondents, NACo argued that local governments are collectively among the largest employers in the country and regularly transfer employees laterally as a matter of operational necessity, to provide training, to fill critical service needs, to accommodate an employee’s religious or disability needs, to investigate a claim of harassment, and to address staffing shortages. We suggested a ruling allowing all lateral transfers, regardless of associated material harm, to qualify as actionable adverse employment actions could profoundly impede the ability of local governments to assign police, fire, and EMS personnel where they are most needed.
CURRENT STATUS
On April 17, the Court issued a 6-3 decision vacating the lower court's ruling against the petitioner and creating a new standard under Title VII for lawsuits related to forced employee transfers. An employee must demonstrate "some harm" in a forced transfer suit, which is a lower threshold than the "material" or "significant" harm adopted by many lower courts. However, the Court did not go so far as to adopt the Petitioner’s proposed rule that any transfer, regardless of harm would be actionable under Title VII if based on a protected characteristic. Learn more here.
2024-2025 Supreme Court Term
NACo Legal Advocacy: San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has implications for the ability of county governments that own and operate wastewater treatment facilities to comply with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements.
NACo Legal Advocacy: Lackey v. Stinnie
Lackey v. Stinnie will impact the ability of state and local governments to avoid paying litigation fees in a civil rights case if they change their conduct (i.e. repeal a law) after a court has granted a preliminary injunction.
NACo Legal Advocacy: Garland v. VanDerStok
Garland v. VanDerStok has implications for the ability of county law enforcement to uphold public safety and investigate crimes involving ghost guns.
NACo Legal Advocacy: Stanley v. City of Sanford
Stanley v. City of Sanford will impact the ability of county governments to balance budgets by reducing or eliminating post-employment benefits for disability retirees.
NACo Legal Advocacy: EMD Sales, Inc. v. Carrera
EMD Sales, Inc. v. Carrera could make it more difficult for county governments to prove exemptions under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which would increase the potential for costly litigation.