Two recent court decisions — Muldrow v. City of St. Louis (U.S. Supreme Court, April 17, 2024) and Herkert v. Bisignano (Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, October 3, 2024) — are reshaping how job transfers, reassignments, and accommodations are treated under federal employment law.
Together, these rulings expand protections for workers and make it easier to bring claims under Title VII, the ADA, and Virginia’s own anti-discrimination laws.
Here’s what these decisions mean for Virginia employees, how they affect discrimination and retaliation cases, and what you should know if your job duties have changed because of bias, disability, or a protected complaint.
The Muldrow Decision (April 2024): “Some Harm” Is Enough
In Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that employees do not have to prove a significant disadvantage (like a pay cut) to sue under Title VII for discriminatory job transfers.
Instead, any tangible harm to a “term, condition, or privilege” of employment — such as losing supervisory duties or career opportunities — can qualify as an adverse employment action.
Key shift: No more “materially significant disadvantage” requirement — only some harm is needed.
Example: If a female police officer is transferred from a prestigious intelligence unit to a routine patrol beat because of gender, it may now be enough to support a Title VII claim — even without a pay change.
Herkert v. Bisignano (October 2024): Applying Muldrow in the Fourth Circuit
In Herkert, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals (which covers Virginia) applied Muldrow to a disability discrimination and retaliation case.
The plaintiff, a federal employee, had requested telework as a reasonable accommodation for a disability. Instead, she was reassigned to a lower-status role without supervisory duties — though her pay remained the same.
The trial court dismissed the case, saying the reassignment wasn’t “materially adverse.” But the Fourth Circuit reversed, holding:
- The Muldrow “some harm” standard now applies
- Loss of supervisory status can be enough harm to support a claim
- Whether the transfer was voluntary is a question for a jury
- Reassignments are not automatically reasonable accommodations
- Retaliation claims still follow the Burlington Northern “materially adverse” standard
Herkert confirms that Muldrow applies in Virginia federal courts.
What These Cases Mean for Workers in Virginia
Lower Threshold for Discrimination Claims
Previously, many federal courts in Virginia dismissed Title VII claims if there was no pay cut or demotion. Now, any real disadvantage — like loss of flexible scheduling, prestige, or key responsibilities — could qualify.
This opens the door for more workplace transfer or duty reassignment claims.
Stronger Protections in Disability Accommodation Cases
The Herkert ruling shows that reassigning an employee isn’t automatically a “reasonable accommodation.” If the employee could have kept their existing job with modest support (e.g., telework, flexible hours), employers must try that first.
Virginia Human Rights Act (VHRA) Will Likely Follow
Virginia’s anti-discrimination law (VHRA) is often interpreted consistently with federal law. Courts in the Commonwealth are likely to adopt the “some harm” test, making it easier to bring state-level claims as well
More Leverage in Settlement and Litigation
With a lower bar for proving harm, more cases in Virginia will survive early dismissal. That gives employees stronger negotiation power and makes employers more likely to settle.
Practical Takeaways for Employees
- Don’t assume your harm is too minor
If you lost duties, prestige, or advancement due to discrimination, you may have a case under Muldrow. - Document everything
Emails, meeting notes, and job descriptions can show a loss of responsibility or opportunity. - Clarify your accommodation request
When requesting accommodations, make it clear you’d prefer to remain in your current role — with suggested modifications.
Bottom Line
Muldrow and Herkert are a turning point for Virginia workers.
They lower the legal threshold for showing workplace harm — making it easier for employees to hold employers accountable for subtle but harmful decisions, like reassignments or schedule changes.
For workers, this means stronger legal tools to fight back. If you’ve been reassigned, sidelined, or had your duties changed after requesting accommodations or reporting discrimination, you may now have a clear path to justice.
