{"id":81300,"date":"2025-02-11T05:43:14","date_gmt":"2025-02-11T05:43:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/peraltafinancing.com\/business\/legal\/supreme-court-says-discriminatory-transfers-are-illegal-even-without-significant-harm\/"},"modified":"2025-02-11T05:43:14","modified_gmt":"2025-02-11T05:43:14","slug":"supreme-court-says-discriminatory-transfers-are-illegal-even-without-significant-harm","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=81300","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court Says Discriminatory Transfers Are Illegal Even Without Significant Harm"},"content":{"rendered":"


\n<\/p>\n

\n

\u00a0Up until recently, if your employer transferred you due to race, age, sex, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability, or other legally protected status, but you kept the same pay and job title, you might have been out of luck bringing legal claims against them. Most courts, including here in Florida, were saying you had to prove that the transfer caused you significant, serious, or substantial harm.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court fixed that in a recent decision<\/a>. A female police officer was discriminatorily transferred so her boss could replace her with a male, but the appeals court said she could not prove the transfer caused her a “materially significant disadvantage.” The Supremes said nah.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The standard for suing for a discriminatory transfer is now that you have to prove “some harm with respect to an identifiable term or condition of employment, but that harm need not be significant.”<\/p>\n

What does this mean? What kind of harm would count? The Court gave some examples:<\/p>\n