- cross-posted to:
- politics@sh.itjust.works
- cross-posted to:
- politics@sh.itjust.works
The Supreme Court on Wednesday made it easier for workers who are transferred from one job to another against their will to pursue job discrimination claims under federal civil rights law, even when they are not demoted or docked pay.
Workers only have to show that the transfer resulted in some, but not necessarily significant, harm to prove their claims, Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the court.
The justices unanimously revived a sex discrimination lawsuit filed by a St. Louis police sergeant after she was forcibly transferred, but retained her rank and pay.
Sgt. Jaytonya Muldrow had worked for nine years in a plainclothes position in the department’s intelligence division before a new commander reassigned her to a uniformed position in which she supervised patrol officers. The new commander wanted a male officer in the intelligence job and sometimes called Muldrow “Mrs.” instead of “sergeant,” Kagan wrote.
Muldrow sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits workplace discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion and national origin. Lower courts had dismissed Muldrow’s claim, concluding that she had not suffered a significant job disadvantage.
IANAL, could this potentially be used for forced relocations caused by return to office mandates for previously fully remote jobs?
This is a discrimination case, which currently only applies to protected classes, such as race, religion, age, etc. But age discrimination can begin at 40 years old, so it’s a class that everyone eventually gets to be a part of…if they are lucky enough to live that long.
It’s also a clear discrimination case, in that the commander made it pretty clear that she was being moved because of her sex. Mandating that all employees return to the office, regardless of protected class, probably wouldn’t pass the sniff test.
Only if A) the job was remote when accepted (meaning you weren’t in the office before COVID), and B) you have some disability preventing you from getting to or working in an office.
I think that would still help a surprising number of people
It certainly doesn’t hurt, but she won based on it being an illegal form of discrimination causing some form of harm, a non-discriminatory policy might be viewed differently.
I mean, it does unnecessarily impact specific subsets of people (people who are unable to drive due to disabilities, people that can’t relocate to certain areas due to severe allergies, medical conditions that have very limited specialists available to treat, etc)
ADA covers a bit of that already, and can already be effectively welded against return to office policies, but they are individual specific exceptions to a global policy. This was targeted illegal discrimination.
Only if that job was remote because of the disability.
Otherwise, no.
*“No, not like that!” *