Renete Barnett-Morgan v. Inverness Technologies, Inc.

In Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, this Court held that Title VII plaintiffs challenging a discriminatory job action need show only “some harm” respecting an identifiable term or condition of employment, and that the harm “need not be significant.” 601 U.S. 346, 354–55 (2024). The Sixth Circuit acknowledged below that Muldrow “does not neatly answer” whether the Petitioner suffered from an adverse employment action which “arguably le[ft” her “‘worse off respecting employment terms or conditions.’” App. 12a–13a (quoting Muldrow, 601 U.S. at 355). The panel, however, declined to decide the question; assumed the Petitioner had proven a prima facie case; and affirmed at the third McDonnell Douglas framework step—the judge-made framework two Members of this Court have twice opined is ripe for reconsideration, and whose operation at summary judgment this Court expressly reserved in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, 605 U.S. 303, 308 n.2 (2025). The panel separately held that Petitioner’s retaliation claim was unexhausted because she omitted to check a preprinted box on an EEOC-drafted charge form. The questions presented are: Whether the involuntary removal of an employee from a supervisory role—stripping her of authority to set schedules, to monitor coworkers, and to initiate discipline—is an adverse employment action under Title VII when her compensation, formal title, and benefits are unchanged.