Title VII doesn’t require showing of tangible harm, D.C. Circuit rules

Title VII doesn’t require employees to demonstrate an “objectively tangible harm,” the full U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit recently ruled. The landmark decision overturned the court’s 1999 opinion in Brown v. Brody that the denial or forced acceptance of a job transfer is actionable under Title VII only if the employee suffered “objectively tangible harm.”

In the new ruling, the court found intervening U.S. Supreme Court authority severely undermined the original holding. Instead, the D.C. Circuit held that forced transfers or the denial of requested transfers because of the employee’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin violate the Act by discriminating against the individual with respect to the “terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.”

Facts

Mary Chambers worked in the attorney general’s office in D.C. for more than 20 years as a clerk and later as a support enforcement specialist and investigator. She complained she had a larger caseload that her comparators and sought numerous transfers to other units in the agency. Each request was denied. She filed an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charge and ultimately initiated her lawsuit in 2014, alleging discrimination and retaliation based on sex.