Civil and Human Rights

RELEASE: Federal Appeals Court Decision Is Victory for Title VII, Workers

WASHINGTON, DC – The en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit today issued a major ruling holding that “an employer that transfers an employee or denies an employee’s transfer request because of the employee’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin violates Title VII by discriminating against the employee with respect to the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.”  

Constitutional Accountability Center filed an amicus brief in the case and CAC Chief Counsel Brianne Gorod issued the following reaction:

Today, the D.C. Circuit overruled a prior decision of that court that had required those who claim employment discrimination under Title VII to show an employer’s action—either the denial or forced acceptance of a job transfer—caused “objectively tangible harm.” As we demonstrated in a brief we filed in the case, that prior decision was at odds with the text and history of Title VII. The Court today was right to overrule it.

Congress passed Title VII to eliminate discrimination in employment and to ensure equality of employment opportunities without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. To achieve that aim, Congress broadly prohibited “discriminat[ion] against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” The requirement that an individual show “objectively tangible harm” had no basis in the text of the statute and undermined the statute’s ability to achieve the goals for which it was passed.

Today’s decision is an important victory for all workers, making clear that individuals can seek redress under Title VII for discriminatory job transfers, as the text and history of Title VII require.  

#

Resources:

CAC case page in Chambers v. District of Columbia: https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/chambers-v-district-of-columbia/

##

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

###

More from Civil and Human Rights

Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Womble v. Patel

In Womble v. Patel, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is considering whether a North Carolina prison’s failure to provide a prisoner with a hearing-aid battery violated the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Supreme Court

St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy

In St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy, the Supreme Court is considering whether the Free Exercise Clause requires Colorado to allow religious preschool providers to join its state-funded universal preschool program even though they refuse...
Civil and Human Rights
July 18, 2026

Arnie Arnesen Attitude July 16 2026

Attitude with Arnie Arnesen
CAC’s David H. Gans joined The Attitude with Arnie Arnesen to discuss the Reconstruction Amendments. Listen...
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Wridt v. City of New York

In Wridt v. City of New York, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York is considering whether the NYPD’s mass surveillance system is unconstitutional.
Civil and Human Rights
July 8, 2026

Ruling Away From America’s Second Founding

Slate
CAC’s David H. Gans wrote about the Roberts Court for Slate magazine. Read more in Slate.
By: David H. Gans
Civil and Human Rights
July 1, 2026

Furthering Inclusive Constitutionalism

Jotwell
Professor Allison Brownell Tirres reviewed recent scholarship on the Black Conventions of Reconstruction by CAC’s David H....