老澳门开奖结果

WASHINGTON 鈥� Today, the Supreme Court delivered a huge victory for workers and workplace equality. The court in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis holding that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act bars employers from discriminating in decisions like lateral transfers, without requiring employees to show that the discriminatory decision caused 鈥渟ignificant鈥� disadvantage.

The 老澳门开奖结果, the 老澳门开奖结果 of Missouri, and the Constitutional Accountability Center filed an amicus brief in support of plaintiff Jatonya Clayborn Muldrow, who claimed that her employer, the city of St. Louis, violated Title VII by transferring her to a new position and subsequently denying a transfer request because of her sex. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled that it was not sufficient that the transfer decisions affected the 鈥渃onditions鈥� of her employment. Instead, Muldrow had to also establish that either her reassignment or her denied transfer request imposed 鈥渁 material employment disadvantage.鈥�

鈥淭oday鈥檚 Supreme Court decision is an enormous win for workers. Courts have too often dismissed cases under the 鈥榤aterially鈥� or 鈥榮ignificantly鈥� adverse standard when employees have meritorious discrimination claims,鈥� said Ming-Qi Chu, deputy director of 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 Women鈥檚 Rights Project. 鈥淭his heightened standard contradicts the statute鈥檚 text and undermines Congress鈥檚 plan of eliminating discrimination in employment in passing Title VII.鈥�

鈥淭oday's ruling strengthens the protections from discrimination intended by Title VII by solidifying workers' right to have and experience consistent expectations on the privileges and conditions of their employment,鈥� said Gillian Wilcox, deputy director for litigation at the 老澳门开奖结果 of Missouri.

鈥淭oday鈥檚 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, 鈥榯he text of Title VII imposes no such requirement.鈥� It鈥檚 an important reminder to lower courts that they should not add atextual requirements to the statute that constricts its scope,鈥� said Brianne Gorod, chief counsel at the Constitutional Accountability Center. 鈥淭oday鈥檚 decision is a win not only for Ms. Muldrow, but also for workers more broadly.鈥�

The court鈥檚 decision comes in midst of a coordinated attempt by conservative advocacy groups trying to cast this ruling as a danger to workplace DEI trainings and initiatives.

鈥淭he fearmongering of DEI opponents has no basis in law and fundamentally misunderstands how most DEI programs work. The purpose of DEI and other remedial workplace programs is to improve the process by which employment decisions are made and close the gap in opportunities among workers. They do not disadvantage any particular worker. This is why they have long been held lawful. These scare-tactics are trying to chill employers鈥� commitment and investment in expanding workplace opportunity. We won鈥檛 let them,鈥� added Ming-Qi Chu.

The amicus brief can be found online here: /cases/muldrow-v-city-of-st-louis?document=Amicus-Brief-in-Support-of-Petitioner

The Supreme Court opinion can be found here: