Civil and Human Rights

Cole v. Wake County Board of Education

In Cole v. Wake County Board of Education, the Supreme Court was asked to consider whether an individual challenging employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act must show that the discrimination produced adverse effects.

Case Summary

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits an employer from “discriminat[ing] against any individual with respect to h[er] compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”  Despite these broad protections from employment discrimination, the Wake County Board of Education reassigned Wanza Cole from her position as a school principal to a position in the school district’s central office because she is Black.  Cole challenged that transfer, arguing that an employment reassignment because of race violates Title VII’s antidiscrimination provision.  The district court granted summary judgment for the school board, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding that the school board’s actions did not violate Title VII because Cole did not establish that her reassignment constituted an “adverse employment action” that had a “significant detrimental effect.”  Cole filed a petition for a writ of certiorari asking the Supreme Court to review that decision.  CAC filed an amicus curiae brief urging the Court to grant the petition and reverse the ruling of the Fourth Circuit.

Our brief argued that Title VII prohibits an employer from racially “discriminat[ing] against any individual with respect to h[er] compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment,” regardless of whether that disparate treatment produces adverse effects.  We argued that the original public meaning of Title VII’s plain text prohibits an employer from transferring an employee because of race, as such a transfer necessarily alters an employee’s “terms, conditions, or privileges of employment,” even if her compensation and other monetary benefits remain the same.

Next, our brief argued that the court below imposed requirements on Title VII plaintiffs that have no basis in the relevant statutory text.  The Fourth Circuit held that a Title VII plaintiff alleging discrimination must show that she suffered an “adverse employment action” that had a “significant detrimental effect.”  But no such requirements exist in Title VII’s antidiscrimination provision, and requiring a plaintiff alleging disparate treatment to show adverse effects is contrary to Congress’s plan in passing Title VII and the statute’s history.  As the Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized, Congress passed Title VII to eliminate discrimination in employment and to ensure that employees are not treated differently solely because of their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.  And the historical record makes clear that the Congress that passed Title VII understood that it would prohibit discriminatory job transfers.

In June 2021, the Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari.  The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case means that many Title VII plaintiffs will continue to bear the burden of establishing that they suffered “significant detrimental effects” from an employer’s discrimination, even though Title VII itself requires no such showing.

Case Timeline

  • April 30, 2021

    CAC files amicus curiae brief in support of the petition for a writ of certiorari

    Sup. Ct. Amicus Br.
  • June 7, 2021

    The Supreme Court denies the petition for a writ of certiorari

More from Civil and Human Rights

Civil and Human Rights
February 28, 2024

“I Am Free But Without A Cent”: Economic Justice As Equal Citizenship

93 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. (forthcoming 2025).
By: David H. Gans
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Supreme Court

Chiaverini v. City of Napoleon, Ohio

In Chiaverini v. City of Napoleon, the Supreme Court is considering whether police officers who file baseless criminal charges against a person are exempt from liability simply because the officers also filed other charges against...
Civil and Human Rights
February 5, 2024

Announcing CAC’s Inaugural Scholar-in-Residence, Professor Alexis Hoag-Fordjour

The Constitutional Accountability Center is pleased to announce that it has selected Professor Alexis Hoag-Fordjour...
Civil and Human Rights
January 31, 2024

Ending US jail workers’ slavery clause ‘could net billions’

Context
What’s the context? Here's how this study quantifies the benefits of ending the 'exception clause'...
By: Miriam Becker-Cohen, David Sherfinski
Civil and Human Rights
December 6, 2023

Supreme Court appears likely to ease process for workplace discrimination claims

The Washington Post
The Supreme Court seemed prepared on Wednesday to make it easier for workers to pursue...
By: Brianne J. Gorod, Ann E. Marimow
Civil and Human Rights
December 6, 2023

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....
By: Brianne J. Gorod