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.
Current Supreme Court Term
NACo files amicus briefs in key cases to further county priorities ahead of the Supreme Court.
NACo Legal Advocacy: Monsanto Company v. Durnell
Monsanto v. Durnell considers a preemption issue that carries substantial implications for counties.
NACo Legal Advocacy: Olivier v. City of Brandon, Mississippi
In Olivier v. City of Brandon, the U.S. Supreme Court is considering when individuals who have been convicted of violating a local ordinance may later bring a federal civil-rights suit challenging that law.
NACo Legal Advocacy: William Trevor Case v. State of Montana
The question at hand in William Trevor Case v. State of Montana is how the “emergency-aid” exemption to the Fourth Amendment is defined and whether it should require “probable cause,” a higher legal threshold that would be needed to justify officers entering the premises of a home in an emergency-aid scenario.
Featured Initiative
Supreme Court Advocacy Hub