Prior to April of 2024, a lateral transfer that did not result in a “significant” disadvantage to an employee would not be considered retaliation in employment discrimination cases. However, the United States Supreme Court case of Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri changed this. In that case, a police officer, Sergeant Jatonya Muldrow, filed a claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 alleging sex discrimination. Against her wishes, she was reassigned to a different job elsewhere in the St. Louis Police Department. While Muldrow's rank and pay remained the same in the new position, her responsibilities, perks, and schedule did not. The District Court ruled against Muldrow, later affirmed by the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals stated that Muldrow’s lawsuit could not proceed because the transfer “did not result in a diminution to her title, salary, or benefits” and had caused “only minor changes in working conditions.

1 The United States Supreme Court disagreed, stating “[t]o make out a Title VII discrimination claim, a transferee must show some harm respecting an identifiable term or condition of employment. What the transferee does not have to show is that the harm incurred was ‘significant’ or otherwise exceeded some heightened bar.”2 Muldrow only needed to show “some injury” regarding her employment terms or conditions, rather than the prior “significant” injury. Thus, a transfer alone may seem innocuous enough, however, if paired with other discriminatory acts, could, in fact, be pretext to retaliation or discrimination based on a protected class.