The Law: Be careful about internal transfers at work

In an April 2024 U.S. Supreme Court case, a St. Louis police sergeant alleged that she was transferred from one job to a less desirable job in the police department because of her sex.

The sergeant was transferred out of the new intelligence division where she had worked for several years and was replaced by a male police officer. In her new job, while her rank and pay remained the same, she alleged she lost several perks and had lesser responsibility and authority.

Ultimately, Sgt. Lisa Muldrow brought a claim alleging she had been discriminated against under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act concerning the terms or conditions of her employment.

The district court originally agreed with the city and dismissed the lawsuit, which was upheld by the federal court of appeals, alleging that she could not show she experienced a “material significant disadvantage” in the new position.

Many business and public safety groups supported the lower court decisions.

“Local governments are one of the nation’s largest employers, collectively,” says Amanda Karras, the executive director and general counsel of the International Municipal Lawyers Association. “One of the most significant concerns for us in this case are the public safety implications. Police and fire departments require the proper personnel in the proper place at the proper time.”

For law enforcement, in particular, which is facing critical officer shortages, “police chiefs and sheriffs need to be allocating their personnel to meet the needs of their communities,” she said. “It may mean disbanding a specialized unit or shifting officers from the day shift to the night shift because more crime occurs at night.

“At the end of the day, who should be making these public safety decisions, the chiefs and sheriffs, or the federal courts?”

Justices disagree

However, the U.S. Supreme Court found that an employee challenging a job transfer under Title VII must merely show that the transfer brought about some harm with respect to an identifiable term or condition of employment, but that harm need not be “ significant.” The employee’s harm must be a “disadvantageous change” to her employment.

Now, the case goes back to the district court, and Sgt. Muldrow must prove that the city transferred her because of her sex and that she suffered some harm relating to the terms and conditions of her employment.

While the court’s decision is considered a win for Title VII plaintiffs who challenge an employer’s job transfer decisions, the law has not changed with respect to the employee’s burden of proof at all time in such cases.

Think it through

Accordingly, employers should continue to carefully consider and document the business reasons for internal transfers, which will help ensure any job decisions are not made on a protected class such as someone’s gender.

Merely paying somebody the same in the new job may not be enough.

Employers need to look to broader factors, including scheduling, responsibilities and the other intangibles of the new position when weighing risks, including valid public safety considerations.

In the end, if Sgt. Muldrow was not the right person for the intelligence division, then there should have been documented objective reasons for that employment decision.

Employers do not always enjoy preparing such documentation, but it often wins the day in establishing a legitimate business decision for a judge or jury.

Wilford H. Stone is a lawyer with Lynch Dallas in Cedar Rapids. Comments: (319) 365-9101; wstone@lynchdallas.com