U.S. Supreme Court backs St. Louis cop who sues over job transfer By Reuters

By Daniel Wiessner

(Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday backed a St. Louis police officer who sued after she said she was transferred to an unwanted new job because of her sex in a case that calls into question test the extent of federal workplace protections.

The justices’ 9-0 ruling rejected a lower court’s decision to dismiss the lawsuit brought by the officer, Jatonya Muldrow, and ordered the matter reconsidered. At issue in the case is whether federal law prohibiting bias in the workplace requires employees to prove that the discrimination caused them tangible harm such as a pay cut, demotion or job loss.

Muldrow said she was transferred from a police intelligence unit by a new supervisor who wanted a male officer in the position.

The city of St. Louis said officers are regularly transferred and that Muldrow’s supervisor transferred more than 20 officers when he took over the intelligence unit.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on sex, race, religion, and other characteristics “with respect to any term, condition, or privilege of employment.”

Muldrow was supported by President Joe Biden’s administration, which had urged the Supreme Court to approve broad enforcement of Title VII. The Justice Department in the brief stated that discriminatory transfers always violate the law because they necessarily result in a change in working conditions.

Lower courts were divided on whether any bias in the workplace violated Title VII or whether companies violated the law only when discrimination affects important employment decisions.

©Reuters.  FILE PHOTO: People visit the U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington, U.S., August 31, 2023. REUTERS/Kevin Wurm/File Photo

In Muldrow’s case, the St. Louis-based 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2022 that his transfer had not adversely affected his working conditions, agreeing with a federal judge’s earlier ruling of Missouri.

The Supreme Court heard arguments in the case in December.



Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *