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

Today’s decision rightly rejected the position that a Title VII plaintiff challenging a transfer must satisfy a heightened threshold of harm to bring her claim. As the Court recognized, “the text of Title VII imposes no such requirement.” It’s an important reminder to lower courts that they should not add atextual requirements to the statute that constrict its scope. Today’s decision is a win not only for Ms. Muldrow, but also for workers more broadly.

ACLU Women’s Rights Project Deputy Director Ming-Qi Chu continued:

Today’s Supreme Court decision is an enormous win for workers. Courts have too often dismissed cases under the ‘materially’ or ‘significantly’ adverse standard when employees have meritorious discrimination claims. This heightened standard contradicts the statute’s text and undermines Congress’s plan of eliminating discrimination in employment in passing Title VII.

##

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.

##