Supreme Court ruling lowers threshold for discrimination claims, paving the way for more DEI-related lawsuits

A new ruling on Wednesday by the Supreme Court lowers the threshold for discrimination claims by employees, which carries significant implications for employers with diversity, equity, and inclusivity (DEI) programs.

The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in favor of St. Louis Police Sergeant Jatonya Clayborn Muldrow on Wednesday. Muldrow had sued the St. Louis Police Department (SLPD) after being transferred from the specialized Intelligence Division to a neighborhood patrol unit against her wishes, allegedly to be replaced by a man, the Daily Wire reported.

Although Muldrow's rank and pay remained the same, her job duties changed, and she lost the use of an unmarked take-home vehicle and a more regular schedule with weekends off. Muldrow claimed she was discriminated against because of her gender, a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. A lower court had previously found that she had not been discriminated against, as she failed to show "significant" harm from the transfer.

The Supreme Court, however, determined that there is no threshold for harm, stating that an employee alleging discrimination "does not have to show … that the harm incurred was significant. Or serious, or substantial, or any similar adjective." This decision has led some to believe that it will be easier for women and minorities to sue based on alleged discrimination.

As detailed by the Daily Wire, Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin” pertaining to pay, terms, conditions, and work privileges.

While the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) celebrated the ruling as "a huge victory for workers and workplace equality," some conservatives have suggested that the decision could make it easier to sue employers who have DEI programs that favor women and minorities.

The Daily Signal noted that many corporate employers create race- and sex-based employment conditions and privileges as part of their DEI initiatives, which could fall under the "privileges of employment" and "compensation" mentioned in Title VII.

The ACLU pushed back against this notion, with Ming-Qi Chu, the deputy director of the organization's Women's Rights Project, dismissing it as "fearmongering." Chu argued that the purpose of DEI and other remedial workplace programs is to improve the decision-making process and close the opportunity gap among workers without disadvantaging any particular worker.