US Supreme Court Makes It Easier for Plaintiffs to Claim Discrimination Under Title VII.pptx

The current Supreme Court’s majority takes consistently extreme positions, out of the mainstream. Many of the High Court’s decisions are sharply divided along political lines. Many citizens and commentators believe that decisions are made depending upon whether a justice was nominated by Republican or Democratic Presidents.

https://kingstonlawgroup.com/us-supreme-court-makes-it-easier-for-plaintiffs-to-claim-discrimination/

1. “Insert Article Title” “US Supreme Court Makes It Easier for Plaintiffs to Claim Discrimination Under Title VII”

2. How are the Supreme Court's decisions perceived politically? What role does the Supreme Court play in the U.S. legal system? What is the potential impact of the Jatonya standard on NJ cases?

3. The current Supreme Court’s majority takes consistently extreme positions, out of the mainstream. Many citizens and commentators believe that decisions are made depending upon whether a justice was nominated by Republican or Democratic Presidents. The Court is the ultimate interpreter and decider of U.S. laws and legal conflicts. It makes life-and-death decisions and can alter the course of history.

4. Plaintiff Had a High-Profile Job Until A Male Employee Replaced Her Sergeant Jatonya Clayborn Muldrow’s (“ Jatonya ”) career with the St. Louis Police Department was movie-worthy from 2008 to 2017: She worked as a plainclothes officer in the specialized Intelligence Division, where she investigated public corruption and human trafficking cases Jatonya oversaw the Gang Unit and served as head of the Gun Crimes Unit She was deputized as a Task Force Officer with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), which granted her FBI credentials, an unmarked vehicle she could take home, and the ability to pursue investigations outside St. Louis

5. Jatonya Pursues Her Discrimination Claims in Federal Court, Where the Judge Isn’t Impressed Jatonya sued her employer,  claiming she lost her job and was transferred because she is a woman .  She also claimed she suffered from unequal treatment in the terms and conditions of employment, in violation of federal law ( Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ). Jatonya stated in a  deposition  that she: Was forced out of “premier position” into a less “prestigious” and more “administrative” uniformed role Had fewer chances to work on important cases and network with commanding officers Went from a Monday to Friday job with regular daytime hours to one that required her to work weekends and in rotating shifts

6. The Federal District Court dismissed Jatonya’s case because it didn’t see the transfer as imposing a “significant” employment disadvantage but rather considered it “minor alterations” of her employment. The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the dismissal. Their decision states that Jatonya didn’t suffer a “materially significant disadvantage,” and her title, salary, and benefits were unchanged. The Supreme Court took Jatonya’s appeal because the federal appellate courts use different standards in transfer cases.

7. Title VII Doesn’t Require Significant or Serious Harm for a Plaintiff to  Have a Viable Transfer Discrimination Claim A rare unanimous decision written by Justice Kagan states that: The lower courts got it wrong given Title VII’s plain language, which prohibits “ discriminat [ ing ] against” an employee “with respect to” the “terms [or] conditions” of employment due to their sex A plaintiff must show the transfer created a “disadvantageous” change in an employment term or condition. They must be injured in some way in an identifiable term or condition of employment, but it need not be tangible or economic

8. But a case need not involve significant, serious, or substantial harm. Prior decisions claiming a high standard of harm to the plaintiff create a barrier to claims Congress didn’t include in the statute Someone claiming they’re the victim of a discriminatory transfer must show some injury to a term or condition of employment because of their sex or another protected basis Her case may be resolved at trial unless the parties reach a settlement. The case was dismissed early in the process, and Jaytona hasn’t proven her discrimination claims yet.

9. Impact on New Jersey Cases The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination  (NJLAD) also prohibits unequal terms and conditions of employment (including a discriminatory transfer) based on gender. State courts have interpreted the law as meaning a plaintiff must show a tangible loss due to a transfer to present a viable case, which arguably sets a higher standard than the one the US Supreme Court set in Jatonya’s case and may be more difficult to prove. parentage, not necessarily genetic parentage.

10. State law covers all employers, while Title VII covers those with 15 or more employees. If you work for a larger employer and you’re dealing with a discriminatory transfer, but its impact is slight, then a federal Title VII claim may be the better way to go. State judges often rely on federal court interpretations when reviewing state anti-discrimination statutes. Future NJLAD case decisions may revert to Jatonya standard, which may benefit those working for smaller New Jersey employers.

11. “Insert Article Title” Schedule a Consultation [phone] KingstonLawGroup.com If you have questions about illegal employment discrimination or believe you have grounds for a legal claim