Ahead of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Muldrow v. St. Louis, an employment discrimination case focused on Title VII issues, Pryor Cashman Counsel Wendy LaManque, a member of the Labor + Employment Group, wrote an article for Law360 analyzing the justices’ questions and comments during the case’s oral arguments.

In “High Court's Job Bias Questions May Predict Title VII Ruling,” Wendy notes that the outcome of Muldrow “has potential implications both for employment discrimination law and corporate diversity, equity and inclusion programs,” and that “the majority of the justices signaled agreement with the petitioner.”

If the Court ends up siding with St. Louis sergeant Jatonya Clayborn Muldrow that her job transfer violated Title VII discrimination rules, Wendy says:

This will resolve a circuit split in two ways. First, it will uphold the standard currently followed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

Second, it will effectively lower the threshold for future plaintiffs bringing Title VII cases in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and other circuits that currently require showing that a discriminatory workplace transfer decision caused a “materially significant disadvantage” to a plaintiff before their claim can be actionable under the law.

She also thinks the ruling will have significant impact in the Labor + Employment space:

While the court narrowed the question presented in Muldrow to only the issue of workplace transfers, it seems likely, based on the questions asked by the justices in oral argument, that this decision will have far-reaching effects. Employees, employers and their lawyers should all pay attention to this case.

Read the full article in the PDF linked above.