D.C. Circuit allows for Title VII liability without any tangible harm

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit recently issued a decision that overturned over 20 years of law regarding the type of employment action that is compensable under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This decision could have implications across the country, as other district courts and appellate courts have followed the same authority, which has since been overruled.

Some history on Title VII cases

In 1999, the D.C. Circuit decided Brown v. Brody, which in essence held that “the denial or forced acceptance of a job transfer is actionable under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 only if the employee suffered ‘objectively tangible harm.’’’

The rule said that a party who was either forced to accept a lateral transfer or denied a lateral transfer, couldn’t file a claim under Title VII unless the transfer had a material impact on their job or compensation (such as an impact or change to their compensation, conditions of employment, or tangible changes to their future employment opportunities). The decision in this case was cited by other courts across the country, including the 3rd, 6th, and 7th Circuits.

D.C. Circuit issues a new decision

On June 3, 2022, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision that overruled Brown. Mary Chambersworked in D.C.’s Office of the Attorney General for more than 20 years in various positions. She sought different positions within the office after complaining of being assigned a larger caseload than her colleagues, but her requests were denied.