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. 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
Civil and Human Rights
June 28, 2024

RELEASE: Ignoring constitutional history and original meaning, conservative majority allows city governments to punish people for sleeping in public even if they have nowhere else to go

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in City of Grants Pass...
By: Brian R. Frazelle
Civil and Human Rights
June 20, 2024

RELEASE: Supreme Court decision keeps the door open to accountability for police officers who make false charges

WASHINGTON, DC – Following this morning’s decision at the Supreme Court in Chiaverini v. City...
By: Brian R. Frazelle
Civil and Human Rights
June 11, 2024

The People Who Dismantled Affirmative Action Have a New Strategy to Crush Racial Justice

Slate
Last summer, in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College, the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority struck...
By: David H. Gans