Good morning!
Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling that makes it easier for employees to sue employers for discrimination if they are forced to transfer jobs within an organization.
The case was brought by a St. Louis police sergeant who claimed she was moved to a less prestigious role because she was a woman, even though she maintained the same rank and salary. A lower court previously ruled that an employee must show that moving will cause problems in salary, rank or career prospects, but the highest court’s ruling this week lowers the bar for how much harm employees must prove to bring a discrimination case .
“Although an employee must show some injury from a forced transfer to prevail in a Title VII lawsuit, she does not have to show that the injury meets a significance test,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her opinion.
The decision has implications for HR departments across the country, experts say Fortune that CHROs will need to apply a new level of oversight and foresight to employee-related decisions that may not previously have required in-depth consideration, carefully documenting their decision-making and broadening the scope of their responsibilities at a company.
“For HR, there needs to be a little more involvement when the company looks at employee actions that may not seem out of the ordinary at first glance,” says Tiffany Cox Stacy, employment attorney and office managing shareholder at Ogletree Deakins.. “Companies often reorganize and move people, and that happens all the time for very good reasons. So sometimes we don’t look at it as closely as we should.”
Human resources are often already closely involved in reviewing promotion or termination decisions to avoid accusations of discrimination, and ensure that the reasoning behind these decisions is documented. Cox Stacy recommends that HR departments now apply the same best practices to all job transfers, and be on the lookout for any employee complaints that might arise from a new job. When an employee does not want the transfer, it is imperative that HR teams work with supervisors to clearly document the reason for the job change and demonstrate that discrimination is not a factor.
“By doing that, HR is essentially the first line of defense in providing evidence as to why the company had to do what it had to do,” says Cox Stacy.
The Supreme Court’s ruling also means HR leaders will have to work directly with more employees than ever before, according to Lauren Hartz, a partner at law firm Jenner & Block, who says bosses at all levels will look to HR for guidance. .
“Maybe we’re talking about lower-level managers who previously weren’t involved in the kinds of decisions that Title VII could trigger. But with this new standard, they are increasingly part of decisions that lead to potential liability,” she says.
The court’s decision could also extend beyond unwanted job transfers and apply to other personnel decisions, such as leadership opportunities, mentorship programs and employee perks, Hartz says. This means that choices that companies consider legally benign will require even more strategy and clarity from HR departments in the future.
“We’ll really have to wait and see what guidance we get from the lower courts on those precise contours,” Hartz says. Until then, she said, companies “need to be very careful to ensure that decisions are made for the right reasons, not the wrong reasons, and are appropriately documented and supported.”
Paige McGlauflin
paige.mcglauflin@fortune.com
@paid
Today’s edition was curated by Emma Burleigh.
This story originally appeared on Fortune.com
