sex discrimination

The United States Supreme Court recently ruled that an employee who brings a lawsuit alleging she was transferred to another position for a discriminatory reason does not have to prove the transfer caused her significant harm.

Jatonya Clayborn Muldrow is a police sergeant in the St. Louis Police Department. She served as a plainclothes officer in the Department’s specialized Intelligence Division. In that position, she investigated public corruption and human trafficking cases, oversaw the Gang Unit, and was the head of the Gun Crimes Unit. As part of her position, she also was a Task Force Officer with the FBI, which gave her FBI credentials, an unmarked vehicle that she took home, and the right to conduct investigations outside of St. Louis.

After a new Intelligence Division commander took over the Division, he decided to transfer Sergeant Muldrow out of the unit so he could replace her with a male Sergeant who he considered a better fit for the unit’s “very dangerous” work. As a result, Sergeant Muldrow was reassigned to a uniformed position in its Fifth District.

The New Jersey Supreme Court recently recognized that an employer can be held liable for discrimination in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”) based on an employment decision that was influenced by a subordinate’s discriminatory animus, whether or not the subordinate intended to get the employee fired.

Michele Meade was the Township Manager for Livingston Township. She was involved in disciplining Police Chief Craig Handschuch and Police Sergeant Kenneth Hanna for their failure to alert the Livingston Community Center about training exercises being conducted in the Center’s parking lot by the Emergency Services Unit (“ESU”). As a result, when someone spotted a man wearing camouflage and carrying a rifle bag in the parking lot, the Community Center locked down three preschool classes, and the Police Department dispatched two detectives to the scene.

Following the incident, Sergeant Hanna filed a criminal complaint against Ms. Meade, claiming she violated the law by using “unreasonably loud and offensive coarse or abusive language” when she publicly addressed him about the incident, including by asking him “what kind of f—ing operation are you running here?” Sgt. Hanna filed a second criminal complaint in which he alleged Ms. Meade had “purposely com[e] into physical contact with officers and civilians in an attempt to obstruct and stop an authorized ESU training exercise.” Ms. Meade eventually was acquitted of both charges.

Articles Tagged with sex discrimination

Discriminatory Job Transfer Can be Actionable Without Significant Harm

Employers Can be Liable for Employment Decision Tainted by Subordinate’s Discrimination