The U.S. Supreme Court had a busy 2023-24 term, with decisions that covered issues including official bribes, immigration, Second Amendment rights, and presidential immunity. While they may not have garnered as much attention in the media, there were also a few important decisions with long-term implications for employers.
The following is an overview of three of those decisions.
Muldrow v. City of St. Louis
In this case, the court decided whether a forced job transfer may constitute illegal discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The case involved the forced transfer of a St. Louis police officer from the position she held for several years to a different position with the same title and pay. After she was transferred, a male officer was put in her old position. Her transfer did not result in any change in title or pay, but the plaintiff alleged the transfer was discriminatory because of her gender.
Justice Kagan wrote for the majority and held that an employee challenging a job transfer under Title VII must show “some” harm with respect to a term or condition of employment; significant harm is not required. Employers will need to take a closer look at employee transfers and ensure that transfer decisions are based on objective criteria and not based on a protected characteristic. Read more about the case in this Employers Council article.
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo
The court entertained arguments addressing the question of Chevron deference and limiting the authority of federal agencies in interpretation and enforcement of laws. Plaintiffs in this case argued that Chevron should be overruled, as it violates the Administrative Procedures Act and courts should have no obligation to adhere to agency guidance in the interpretation of ambiguous laws.
Chief Justice Roberts, in writing for the majority, agreed with the plaintiffs and ruled that judges must exercise their independent judgement in interpreting laws and cannot treat agency guidance as binding. It remains to be seen how employers will be immediately impacted as a result of the overturning of Chevron, but federal agencies that interpret and enforce labor and employment laws (EEOC, OSHA, DOL) will need to reevaluate the regulations they issue and positions they take within those regulations. Read more about the case in this Employers Council article.
Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC
This case answered the question as to whether employees need to prove retaliatory intent by the employer to be protected under the federal whistleblower protections of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX). The plaintiff alleged that his former employer violated the act when he was terminated for raising concerns about unethical and illegal activity by the employer.
Justice Sotomayor wrote the opinion for a unanimous Court ruling that retaliatory intent is not required to prove whistleblower retaliation under Sarbanes-Oxley. Employers covered under Sarbanes-Oxley will want to review their anti-retaliation policies and ensure that all employee concerns are thoroughly investigated. Read more about the case in this Employers Council article.
Consulting and Enterprise members with questions about how these decisions affect them can contact Employers Council.
Mary Miller is an attorney for Employers Council.