A pair of cases from the United States Supreme Court and the Second Circuit (covering Connecticut, New York, and Vermont) in 2024 highlight the importance of documentation and well-trained managers when issuing employee discipline.

Muldrow v. St. Louis

In April 2024, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Muldrow v. St. Louis, overturning summary judgment granted to the City of St. Louis against a veteran, female sergeant of the St. Louis Police Department. For nine years, Muldrow served as a member of the Intelligence Division. Not only did this role provide her with a consistent Monday-Friday schedule, but she served as a member of an FBI task force and received a take-home vehicle.

Shortly after a new commander took over the Intelligence Division, he began referring to Sergeant Muldrow as “Mrs.” instead of the customary “Sergeant” (though he referred to males in the same role as “Sergeant”), and ultimately, transferred Muldrow because he felt that “a male was a better fit” for the Intelligence Division’s “very dangerous work.” The decision to transfer Sergeant Muldrow occurred even though her prior commander described Muldrow as “one sergeant he could count on in the Division.”

While Sergeant Muldrow was transferred to a uniformed position at the same rank and pay, she did lose her consistent schedule, her FBI task force status and take-home vehicle, and moved to a less prestigious role within the police department. As a result of these negative changes, Sergeant Muldrow sued for gender discrimination under Title VII against the City of St. Louis. Both the district court and appeals court determined that Muldrow did not suffer an “adverse action” – a required element of a claim for discrimination under Title VII – because her transfer, which resulted in no change in her rank or pay, did not cause her to suffer a “significant” change in working conditions producing “material employment disadvantage.”

On appeal, the United States Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, disagreed, finding that there is no requirement to show a “significant” or “material” harm in order to state a claim for discrimination under Title VII; it is merely sufficient there was some harm. The focus should be on whether the action was taken because of the individual’s protected class; in this case, that was Sergeant Muldrow’s gender.

While Muldrow applied to involuntary transfers, courts have already determined that a number of other employer actions, including issuance of Performance Improvement Plans, suspensions with pay, failure to accommodate, training opportunities/requirements (when offered to some and not others or required of some and not others), and even transfer denials, may also constitute adverse actions.

Bart v. Golub Corp.

A few weeks before the Supreme Court’s decision in Muldrow, the Second Circuit decided Bart v. Golub Corp., another gender discrimination claim under Title VII. In Bart, the plaintiff had a multi-year documented – and acknowledged – history of performance issues related to her accurate maintenance of food logs maintained for health and safety purposes. Two days after it was determined that Bart had failed to maintain food logs yet again, something Bart admitted, she was terminated.

This may seem like a clean case as Bart had a documented history of failing to maintain food logs, and she admitted to the incident that occurred two days prior to her termination. Indeed, it was these facts that caused the district court to grant summary judgment to the employer.

On appeal, however, the Second Circuit noted that Bart’s direct manager (who was involved in the decision to terminate Bart) made comments to Bart a mere two months prior to her termination that “he didn’t think women should be managers,” in addition to several other derogatory comments directed at Bart and other women. From the Second Circuit’s perspective, a plaintiff could state a claim for discrimination if membership in a protected class was “at least one motivating factor in the employer’s adverse action.” Accordingly, the circuit court vacated the grant of summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Now, instead of receiving summary judgment (which was granted in January 2023), the parties are now back before the district court with trial scheduled for August 2025 if the matter does not settle.

Employer Takeaways

Both Muldrow and Bart involved cases of clear gender animus from the plaintiffs’ supervisors. There likely would be no lawsuit – and at the very least, it would be a lawsuit an employer could win – had these supervisors/managers not made these types of comments. These decisions make clear the importance of training managers and human resources on how to prevent and address discrimination in the workplace. In addition to knowing and following the law, it is critical that employers take prompt, corrective action to address comments like those made here.

These decisions – and the case history after appeal – also signal two things relevant to future litigation: (1) more cases are likely to proceed further in the litigation process, i.e., past summary judgment; and (2) it likely impacts how an employer assesses the risk of an adverse verdict and/or what it may be willing to pay in settlement.

Spilman regularly conducts workplace training for managers and frontline employees. If you have questions and/or we can assist you with your labor and employment needs, please reach out to a member of Spilman’s labor and employment team.