Muldrow v City of St. Louis (2024)
Same job, different person
Jatonya Muldrow, a sergeant of the St. Louis Police Department, was replaced with a male officer because he was allegedly a “better fit” for the high-risk job. Muldrow did not take a loss in salary or rank, however a lot of parts of her job shifted against her will. Lower level courts did not entertain the case because they believed a consistent factor of rank and pay meant that the charge did not hold enough weight. The Supreme Court stepped in with a different state of mind.
Breakdown Verdict.
A unanimous verdict (9-0) vacated the ruling of the lower court and reversed it in favor of Muldrow. Justice Elena Kagan represented the judges and stated that any harm whatsoever to a condition of employment is grounds for filing a discrimination claim. If the inequality exists, it can be reported.
Result Going Forward.
The verdict allows many more situations to result in a lawsuit. A demotion or paycut is no longer the necessary line for a discrimination claim, but now simple schedule changes. Tangible impact itself is no longer needed, which expands the extent of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiatives. For example, an organization that offers opportunities to a specific group of people can be labelled as discriminatory.
Do you agree with the verdict?
86%
14%