This past April, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an important discrimination law ruling that serves as a critical breakthrough for workers harmed by discriminatory job transfers. The ruling rejected a standard many lower courts had followed that said an employee alleging discrimination under Title VII must demonstrate that their transfer placed them at a "materially significant" disadvantage. Now, the courts must apply a less stringent standard, and we are starting to see the effects of that, including here in New York. If you have questions about federal discrimination law and your job transfer, you should act without delay and speak with an experienced New York employment discrimination lawyer about your situation.
In the case that made it to the Supreme Court, the employee was a female police sergeant in St. Louis whose commander transferred her in 2017. The post-transfer role had the same title, and the sergeant earned the same as before. However, the new position involved wearing a uniform instead of dressing in plainclothes, fewer overtime opportunities, and less prestige.
The trial and appeals courts ruled for the employer, concluding that whatever adversity the transfer represented was not materially significant. The Supreme Court revived the case, writing that even discriminatory lateral transfers that did not inflict significant harm can be violations of Title VII as long as they inflicted "some harm."
Fast-forward to this month, and we can see the importance of the Supreme Court's new precedent in a federal lawsuit filed here in New York City.
The local case involved a CEO's executive assistant and her employer, a major commercial bank. Allegedly, the bank transferred the assistant to a different role as punishment for submitting a written complaint about her boss attending work while contagious with COVID-19 and triggering an outbreak that infected dozens of bank employees (including the assistant).
The crux of the assistant's sex discrimination case was that she was one of six (or more) bank employees who complained, but none of the other complainers (all men) received any workplace consequences for their complaints.
In March 2024, the trial court dismissed the assistant's lawsuit. The court agreed with the employer that the prevailing caselaw in the 2d Circuit (which includes all federal lawsuits in New York, Vermont, and Connecticut) required a "materially adverse change in the terms and conditions of employment," and the assistant's pleadings had not shown that.
Just a few weeks later, though, the Supreme Court issued its decision in the St. Louis case, and earlier this month, the 2d Circuit Court of Appeals decided that ruling demanded a reversal of the employer's victory.
Analyzing Discriminatory Job Transfer Cases Under the New Standard
As the appeals court noted, the high court's opinion said that an employer who experienced a discriminatory job transfer "does not have to show . . . that the harm incurred was significant or serious, or substantial, or any similar adjective suggesting that the disadvantage to the employee must exceed a heightened bar." All the employee must demonstrate is "some harm respecting an identifiable term or condition of employment."
In the assistant's case, her allegations cleared this lower hurdle. Her complaint depicted her as going from the CEO's executive assistant, where she functioned as "a kind of Chief of Staff to the CEO," which included liaising with the bank's "highest-ranking executives and directors across the world" to merely working within the bank's Compliance Department. Her "transfer away from the center of power" would appear like a demotion, according to the assistant.
The assistant's complaint plausibly made the case that this removal from the C-suite would negatively impact the woman's "career advancement prospects," thereby constituting "some harm" and clearing the lower hurdle the Supreme Court erected in April. As a result, she was entitled to continue pursuing her case.
Employers in New York and across the country frequently engage in harassment or discrimination in very subtle ways. One of these methods is the not-so-lateral lateral transfer. Now, in the aftermath of the Supreme Court's new ruling, workers harmed by these actions are better equipped than ever to hold accountable those who engaged in discrimination or harassment. If you have experienced this sort of treatment in your job, get in touch with the experienced New York sex/gender discrimination attorneys at Phillips & Associates. We are very well-versed in the latest developments in discrimination and harassment law and how to put them to use to help you get justice. Contact us online or at (833) 529-3476 to set up a free and confidential consultation.