WASHINGTON, D.C. – The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of a St. Louis police officer Wednesday who accused her former department of transferring her to another location because she is a woman.

Sgt. Jatonya Clayborn Muldrow worked in the specialized Intelligence Division in the St. Louis Police Department for nine years. She overlooked and investigated corruption, human trafficking, the Gang Unit, and served as the leader of the Gun Crimes Unit. Stemming from her position, she worked with the FBI as a Task Force Officer.

The case document says that Muldrow’s former commander told the new successor that if there was one sergeant to count on in the division, it was Muldrow. When the new commander came into the department in 2017, Muldrow was asked to transfer out of the unit to be replaced by a male officer.

Against Muldrow’s wishes, she was relocated after the department reassigned her. While the pay and rank remained the same, her responsibilities, schedule, and perks did not.

According to the Supreme Court ruling document, she was transferred to a department where she was completing day-to-day responsibilities in neighborhoods rather than with high-ranking officials on Intelligence Division priorities. She was no longer able to bring home an unmarked police vehicle and lost job schedule stability, including working weekends.

Close

Thanks for signing up!

Watch for us in your inbox.

Subscribe Now

Daily News

Muldrow challenged the transfer through Title VII. In response, the Eighth Circuit Court stated that because the relocation could not prove any “materially significant disadvantage,” the lawsuit was unable to move forward.

The City of St. Louis heavily emphasizes the word ‘significant,’ which implies that a certain threshold of disadvantage must be met before the action can be considered discriminatory, according to the document.

“By asking whether the harm to the transferee is significant, appellate courts have disregarded varied kinds of disadvantage,” the document reads.

The Supreme Court denied the city’s claim about using the terminology. Under the Title VII anti-retaliation provision from a 2006 case, Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White, an employer is also prohibited from taking action against an employee under a Title VII charge. Ultimately, the Supreme Court believed that the court applied the wrong standard to Muldrow’s case.

Justice Elena Kagan delivered the Supreme Court’s decision. The case was vacated and remanded 9-0 Wednesday. Justices Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh filed concurring opinions in the judgement.

“All we require is that (the Eighth Circuit Court) use the proper Title VII standard, and not demand that Muldrow demonstrate her transfer caused ‘significant’ harm,” the opinion of the court said.

For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to FOX 2.