Civil and Human Rights

RELEASE: Focus on Hypotheticals at Supreme Court Argument this Morning Shouldn’t Distract from the Question in this Case and Title VII’s Answer

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, a case in which the Court is asked to consider whether an individual challenging employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act must show that the discrimination caused a “materially significant disadvantage,” Constitutional Accountability Center Chief Counsel Brianne Gorod issued the following reaction:

There was a lot of discussion about hypotheticals and future cases at the Supreme Court this morning, but those questions shouldn’t distract from the question the Court agreed to decide in this case: does Title VII prohibit discrimination in transfer decisions absent a separate court determination that the transfer decision caused a significant disadvantage. To answer that question, the Court need look no farther than the plain text of Title VII.

As Justice Jackson rightly pointed out, Title VII makes it an “unlawful employment practice” for an employer “to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment” on the basis of a protected characteristic, and “to discriminate” means to “make a difference in treatment or favor.” When, as occurred in this case, an employee is transferred because of their sex, there has been a difference in the “terms, conditions, or privileges of employment” because of a protected characteristic. That is enough to answer the question the Court agreed to decide in this case.

Whatever questions may be presented by future Title VII cases, this Title VII case should be an easy one for textualists. Holding that Title VII’s protections extend as broadly as the plain text of the law requires would be a win not only for Ms. Muldrow, but also for workers more broadly.

##

Resources:

Case page in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis: https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/muldrow-v-city-of-st-louis/

##

Constitutional Accountability Center is a nonpartisan think tank and public interest law firm dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of the Constitution’s text, history, and values. Visit CAC’s website at www.theusconstitution.org.

##

More from Civil and Human Rights

Civil and Human Rights
December 5, 2024

Podcast (We the People): Can Tennessee Ban Medical Transitions for Transgender Minors?

National Constitution Center
A Tennessee law prohibits transgender minors from receiving gender transition surgery and hormone therapy. Professor Kurt...
Civil and Human Rights
December 4, 2024

RELEASE: Supreme Court Should Not Turn Equal Protection Clause on its Head in Case about Medical Care for Transgender Adolescents

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in United States...
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Payan v. Los Angeles Community College District

In Payan v. Los Angeles Community College District, the Ninth Circuit is considering whether lost educational opportunities are compensable under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Supreme Court

Stanley v. City of Sanford

In Stanley v. City of Sanford, the Supreme Court is considering whether the Americans with Disabilities Act protects against disability discrimination with respect to retirement benefits distributed after employment. 
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Supreme Court

United States v. Skrmetti

In United States v. Skrmetti, the Supreme Court is considering whether Tennessee’s ban on providing gender-affirming medical care to transgender adolescents violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Civil and Human Rights
July 31, 2024

Supreme Court Allows Cities to Punish Homelessness

The Regulatory Review
At the end of its 2023-24 term, the U.S. Supreme Court issued several divided decisions...
By: Brian R. Frazelle