Many employers attempt to comply with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) and treat all employees equally based on their protected statuses. Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating against employees based on race, color, sex, religion, and national origin. Notwithstanding, employers sometimes have to contend with unmeritorious Title VII lawsuits filed by unscrupulous employees or former employees. A common defense in these Title VII lawsuits is that the employee or former employee was not subjected to an adverse employment action. Employers commonly assert this defense because the employee or former employee is required to prove an adverse employment action to establish a prima facie discrimination case. In other words, the employee or former employee has the initial burden to prove he or she was subjected to an adverse employment before the employer is required the remaining parts of the employee’s or former employee’s claim. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). The Miami business litigation attorneys of the Mavrick Law Firm represent businesses and their owners in breach of contract litigation and related claims of fraud, non-compete agreement litigation, trade secret litigation, trademark infringement litigation, employment litigation, and other legal disputes in federal and state courts and in arbitration.
For many years, employees had to demonstrate adverse employment action by showing that an employer’s action created a “serious and material” change to the terms of employment. Davis v. Town of Lake Park, Fla., 245 F.3d 1232 (11th Cir. 2001). This standard helped employers defeat Title VII claims when employees brought claims involving unsubstantial adverse employment action. However, the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Mo., 601 U.S. 346 (2024), changed the standard, which makes it more difficult for employers.
Muldrow involved a Title VII claim by a police officer who alleged her transfer to another division within the police department was sex-based discrimination. The officer worked in a plainclothes unit specializing in intelligence. She had FBI credentials, a take-home vehicle, and the authority to pursue investigations outside of the city. A new supervisor requested that the officer be transferred out of the intelligence division and was replaced by a male officer.
The post DEFENDING FLORIDA EMPLOYERS: TITLE VII AND ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION appeared first on Florida Business Litigation Lawyer Blog.