California laws are generally more “employee-friendly” than federal employment-related laws are. However, cases in which the U.S. Supreme Court makes a decision (and interpretation of the law) favorable to employees can still help Californians in their employment disputes.
Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court heard a case involving Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That’s the federal law that prohibits private employers with at least 15 employees from discriminating in “compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment” based on protected characteristics like race, religion, sex and more. It should be noted that under California’s Fair Employment Housing Act (FEHA), this applies to employers with as few as five employees.
The case that made it to the Supreme Court
The case involved a female police sergeant who was transferred to a different job that she contended was less prestigious and required her to have a less convenient schedule. The job from which she was transferred was given to a man.
She filed a discrimination suit, which was dismissed by a lower court. That court ruled that because she didn’t lose her rank or her salary, the transfer didn’t have a “materially significant” effect on her.
How much harm is required to bring a discrimination case?
In what has become a rare show of unanimity, all nine Supreme Court justices ruled in the plaintiff’s favor. They zeroed in on the lower court’s use of the word “significant” – noting that Title VII requires only that an employee only needs to suffer “some” harm based on “an identifiable term or condition of employment” to pursue a discrimination claim against their employer. Their decision allows the plaintiff to continue with her case.
Lower courts have varied in their rulings regarding how much harm an employee must have suffered to take action. Typically, that involved being fired, having their salary lowered or not getting a job.
Employment discrimination cases typically require proving that a negative action was taken for discriminatory reasons – based on someone’s race, gender or other protected characteristic. It also requires evidence of harm.
This case may help other plaintiffs whose cases are heard by lower courts show that their harm is actionable even if they weren’t harmed financially. A good first step in building a solid case is getting sound, experienced legal guidance.