The Impact of Muldrow on Title VII: Courts Grapple with the ‘Some Harm’ Standard

Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s April 17 decision in Muldrow v. St. Louis, federal courts are now navigating how and when to apply the new “some harm” standard. In Muldrow, the Supreme Court ruled that “to make out a Title VII discrimination claim, a transferee must show some harm respecting an identifiable term or condition of employment” (emphasis added). This is a lower standard than previously required in some circuits.

While Muldrow focused on a lateral transfer, the main issue was whether the plaintiff had alleged sufficient harm related to employment to allow the case to proceed. The U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, the first in the 10th Circuit to apply this standard, recently rejected an employer’s motion for summary judgment, stating, “The extent (if any) to which Muldrow will revolutionize Title VII case law is not yet clear. But it is an important case with important implications for the current dispute.”

The district court noted that the term “adverse employment action” has become outdated post-Muldrow, and it criticized the defendant for failing to address the decision’s impact, mentioning it only once in a reply brief. The court expressed frustration at the defendant’s lack of attention to the updated legal standards.

This case highlights the importance of staying informed about recent court decisions, as they can significantly affect case strategies and outcomes.