There have been a lot of high-profile rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) this year. One ruling that didn’t get as much attention may nonetheless affect people all over the country who have faced discrimination from their employers.
The ruling, which was handed down this spring, involves Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Many people associate Title VII with discrimination in sports. However, it’s a far-reaching federal law that also prohibits discrimination by employers (with 15 or more employees) based on protected characteristics including race, sex, religion, age and disability. Specifically, discrimination in “compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment” is prohibited.
For employees to win a case under Title VII, courts have typically determined that they must have suffered some type of serious adverse action such as termination or salary cut because of a protected characteristic.
The case of the police sergeant
For this reason, a lower court dismissed a St. Louis police sergeant’s claim of discrimination after she was transferred and replaced by a man. The court determined that even though her new position was less prestigious and had a less convenient schedule, it didn’t result in a “materially significant disadvantage” because she maintained her rank and salary.
In a rare unanimous ruling, SCOTUS determined that the sergeant had the right to pursue a discrimination claim because Title VII only requires that someone has suffered “some” harm – not “significant” harm – involving “an identifiable term or condition of employment.”
This ruling lowers the bar that has been artificially set by a number of court rulings for pursuing discrimination claims after suffering harm due to a protected characteristic. However, that may need to be pointed out to the other side and potentially even to a judge who may not be familiar with the SCOTUS ruling. That’s just one reason why having experienced legal guidance can make all the difference in the outcome of a discrimination claim.