Compliance Stuff

Following the Supreme Court of the United States’ April 2024 ruling in  Muldrow v. City of St. Louis , employers have grappled with determining what constitutes an adverse employment action that will support a claim under federal antidiscrimination laws. A  recent decision  from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit offers some guidance in the context of job reassignments or transfers. Quick Hits In  Herkert v. Bisignano , No. 24-1420 (August 14, 2025), the Fourth Circuit found that, depending on the circumstances, a job reassignment may be an adverse employment action under the Supreme Court’s  Muldrow  standard. While finding that an employee’s acceptance of a new position does not necessarily mean that the change was voluntary, the Fourth Circuit declined to hold that  any  loss of supervisory authority would constitute “an actionable ‘disadvantageous change’ in employment status.” Employers may need to be prepared to explain and de...

We are about to put an employee on a Performance Improvement Plan. Can they sue us for employment discrimination? Many employers use Performance Improvement Plans, or “PIPs,” as a way to provide clear guidance and direction to employees. Employees given a PIP still have a job, and typically don’t lose any pay. But can a PIP be the basis for an employment discrimination claim? Until recently, the answer probably was “no.” Many courts in the U.S. had denied such claims, finding that placement on a PIP did not constitute a “material,” or “substantial” harm to the employee. But in 2024, the Supreme Court decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis concluded that there is no requirement of materiality or substantial harm to advance a discrimination claim under Title VII - rather, only “some harm” need be shown . And for more information on the impact of that decision, refer to our Littler 2 the Point,  What is the impact of  Muldrow v. City of St. Louis  on discrimination claims ...