Seventh Circuit Enforces Supreme Court’s Landmark Overhaul of Standards for Title VII Employment Discrimination Claims

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently reversed a decision from the District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, which had dismissed a Title VII employment discrimination complaint for failure to state a claim. The law underpinning the District Court’s decision had been overruled by the Supreme Court of the United States, resulting in the Seventh Circuit reversing the District Court. In its April 17, 2024, decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, the Supreme Court abrogated a significant number of decisions from various federal Courts of Appeals relating to the standards required for a plaintiff to demonstrate a claim for employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII).

Title VII makes it unlawful for an employer “to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” The Seventh Circuit, which decides appeals from the lower federal district courts in Wisconsin, Illinois, and Indiana, has long held that discrimination with respect to “terms, conditions, or privileges” of employment under a Title VII claim must be significant or material.

However, the reign of the Seventh Circuit’s “material” standard came to a screeching halt with the Supreme Court’s Muldrow decision. In Muldrow, the plaintiff was a female police officer who brought an action against her employer, alleging that it unlawfully discriminated against her based on her sex when it transferred her from her position as a plain clothes officer in the Intelligence Division to a uniformed job in another department. The Supreme Court reversed and vacated the lower court’s decisions granting and affirming summary judgment to the employer and reminded the lower courts of the proper standard for Title VII claims. Specifically, the Supreme Court held that a Title VII plaintiff need only show “some injury” with respect to employment terms or conditions, not an injury that is “significant” or “serious, or substantial, or any similar adjective suggesting that the disadvantage to the employee must exceed a heightened bar.”  The Supreme Court’s majority opinion in Muldrow concluded with a directive for the lower courts to use the “proper” Title VII standard rather than demanding that a Title VII plaintiff show that an employer’s challenged action caused “significant harm.”

The Seventh Circuit addressed Muldrow’s directive in its recent decision in Thomas v. JBS Green Bay, Inc. Muldrow was a “transfer” case, where the plaintiff complained that a transfer of positions was an injury. The Seventh Circuit applied Muldrow’s directives to the plaintiff in Thomas, who complained that his employer discriminated against him based on his race when it delayed his training on a particular machine, denied his request for vacation time while granting equivalent requests by other workers, and transferred the plaintiff to a different shift. The District Court dismissed the plaintiff’s amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted because the plaintiff did not allege sufficiently serious injuries to have a cognizable Title VII claim and because the complaint did not allege every element that the plaintiff would eventually need to prove in his lawsuit. The Seventh Circuit reversed the District Court’s dismissal on two grounds. First, the Seventh Circuit noted that Muldrow had overruled any previous law that required a Title VII plaintiff to allege “significant” or “material” injuries. The Seventh Circuit found that all of the actions that the plaintiff complained of entailed “some harm,” and thus satisfied Muldrow’s Title VII standard. Next, the Seventh Circuit held that a Title VII plaintiff’s complaint does not need to allege each element that the plaintiff would eventually need to prove but needs only meet the notice-pleading standards of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Seventh Circuit noted that notice-pleading standards had been the law prior to Muldrow and re-iterated that racial discrimination in employment is a claim upon which relief can be granted under Seventh Circuit precedent.

Bottom Line

Muldrow and Thomas will have significant influence on Title VII discrimination cases in Wisconsin, Illinois, and Indiana. These cases have overhauled the requirement for a Title VII plaintiff to demonstrate that discrimination with respect to terms, conditions, or privileges of employment were significant or material. In the wake of these decisions, “some injury” with respect to terms, conditions, or privileges of employment – no matter how significant – is sufficient to demonstrate a required element of a Title VII claim. As a result, the number of Title VII lawsuits surviving motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment and proceeding to jury trials will likely increase. Whether you are an employee or an employer, having legal counsel experienced in employment discrimination litigation will be critical to successful litigation under this new landscape.