In a recent case, the U.S. Supreme Court decided a case in which a police sergeant alleged she was transferred from one job to a less desirable job in the police department because of her sex.
About the Case
The sergeant was transferred out of the intelligence division where she had worked for several years and was replaced by a male officer. Although her rank and pay remained the same in her new position, she lost several perks and had less responsibility and authority. Ultimately, she filed a claim against the city alleging she had been discriminated against in the terms or conditions of her employment based on her sex under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The district court originally granted the city summary judgment (dismissal in its favor without a trial), which the sergeant appealed to the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals (whose rulings apply to employers in all states covered by Upper Midwest Employment Law Letter). The 8th Circuit upheld the lower court’s decision, finding the sergeant couldn’t show a “materially significant disadvantage.”
The Supreme Court, however, noted that discrimination means to be “treated worse,” and that while there must be harm with respect to an identical term or condition of employment, the harm “need not be significant.” The Court clearly states the law doesn’t establish “an elevated threshold of harm.”
Big Picture
When assessing changes in employment, demotion and restructuring pay alone may not be sufficient to show that no harm has occurred to an employee as part of that process. You need to look to broader factors including scheduling, responsibilities, and the other intangibles of the position when weighing risks.
Jo Ellen Whitney is an attorney with Dentons Davis Brown in Des Moines. You can reach her at joellen.whitney@dentons.com.