Recent employment Supreme Court decisions
Recently the Supreme Court has ruled on several employment cases, establishing new precedents which effect employers and employees. In Muldrow, the Supreme Court unanimously held that Plaintiffs making a claim of employment discrimination under Title VII where the adverse employment action is a transfer, no longer need to show “significant” or heightened harm caused by the transfer, but simply need to show that the transfer was or created harm for an identifiable term or condition of employment. Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, 601 U.S. 346, 346, 144 S. Ct. 967, 969, 218 L. Ed. 2d 322 (2024).
Previously, before this case, employees making a discrimination claim under Title VII, needed to show that the transfer caused significant harm, this allowed employers do things such as, transfer employees to new job sites, Muldrow, 144 S. Ct. at 975 (citing Boone v. Goldin, 178 F.3d 253, 256 (CA4 1999)), change an employees shifts from day to only nighttime, Muldrow, 144 S. Ct. at 975 (citing Daniels v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 701 F.3d 620, 635 (CA10 2012)), and transfer a school principal into a “non-school-based administrative role,” Muldrow, 144 S. Ct. at 975, 218 L. Ed. 2d 322 (2024) (citing Cole v. Wake Cty. Bd. of Educ., 834 Fed.Appx. 820, 821 (CA4 2021)), with the employees left without any redress if they’re claims did not include significant harm.
This change in employment law means that employees can now sue for employment discrimination under Title VII even when the transfer didn’t cause significant harm. Employees should take note, as this means they have greater remedies regarding employment discrimination, and employers should take note that employee transfers are now subject to the same analysis as other adverse employment actions under Title VII.
Another recent Supreme Court case regarding employment law is Bissonnette, which changed standards in employment cases in the transportation industry. Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC, 601 U.S. 246, 246, 144 S. Ct. 905, 906, 218 L. Ed. 2d 204 (2024). In Bissonnette, the Supreme Court held that transportation workers no longer need to work in the transportation industry to be exempt from coverage under Section 1 of the FAA (federal arbitration act). 144 S. Ct. at 906. Section 1 of the FAA provides an exemption from arbitration for transportation workers, meaning that going forward, transportation workers that don’t work in the transportation industry will no longer be compelled into arbitration by the FAA, and will instead be allowed to sue directly in court.