吃瓜大本营

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits an employer from 鈥渄iscriminat[ing] against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual鈥檚 race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.鈥� Notwithstanding this plain text, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that the City of St. Louis did not violate Title VII when it transferred Jatonya Clayborn Muldrow to a different job and denied her a requested transfer, allegedly because of her sex. According to the court, it was not sufficient that the transfer decisions affected the 鈥渃onditions鈥� of her employment. Instead, Muldrow also had to establish that either her reassignment from the Intelligence Division to a position in the Fifth District or her denied request to transfer to an administrative aide position imposed 鈥渁 material employment disadvantage.鈥� Several other circuit courts have imposed similar requirements. The ACLU, in an amicus brief filed with the Constitutional Accountability Center, argues that Title VII鈥檚 antidiscrimination provision contains no such requirement, and the courts cannot impose additional requirements beyond those Congress set forth in the statute itself. Moreover, Congress鈥檚 choice to prohibit all discrimination with respect to the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment reflects its understanding that discrimination itself inflicts tangible dignitary harm. The Eighth Circuit鈥檚 test contradicts Congress鈥檚 text and purpose.