Dallas Employment Lawyer Blog
Summary: This article discusses a possible future application of the reasoning in Muldrow v. St. Louis, by comparing that case to past decisions that set up the “severe or pervasive” standard.
I previously wrote about the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, in which the Court made it clear that discrimination is unlawful as long as it causes “some” harm. A plaintiff does not have to meet some arbitrary bar of “significant” harm just to bring their case. Any disadvantageous change in the “terms, conditions, or privileges of employment,” if done for an unlawfully discriminatory reason, violates Title VII. This article explores one area, hostile work environment claims, where Muldrow’s reasoning could also apply.
The Muldrow decision was specifically about transfers, and logically it is clear that it covers other types of adverse actions that affect terms or conditions of employment. What is somewhat murkier is whether its reasoning extends to situations without a single clearly defined adverse action, such as a hostile work environment. In Texas, a federal court in Dallas just looked at this issue in Zuniga v. City of Dallas, No. 3:23-CV-2308-D (N.D. Tex. May 28, 2024). Unfortunately, in that case the court decided that because the standard for a hostile work environment had been “high” in prior cases, and Muldrow did not specifically address the issue, it did not apply. In my view, the reasoning in Zuniga is exactly the sort of reasoning that Muldrow already rejected.
