151 F.4th 157
4th Cir.2025Background
- Mary Herkert, a disabled employee at the Social Security Administration (SSA), served as a supervisory Branch Chief (GS-13).
- She requested a formal scheduled telework accommodation due to her medical conditions; her request was denied, and she notified supervisors of her intent to seek EEO remedies.
- Shortly after, Herkert was reassigned to a non-supervisory management analyst position, which allowed telework but allegedly offered less prestige and advancement.
- Herkert filed suit, alleging disability discrimination, retaliation, and failure to reasonably accommodate under the Rehabilitation Act.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the SSA, holding Herkert suffered no actionable adverse employment action because the reassignment was not significantly detrimental and was voluntary.
- On appeal, the Supreme Court's intervening decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis lowered the threshold for what constitutes an adverse employment action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the reassignment an adverse employment action? | Herkert: Loss of supervisory duties was a disadvantageous change. | SSA: No change in pay/benefits; reassignment was lateral. | Jury must decide if Herkert's reassignment was "disadvantageous" under Muldrow standard. |
| Was the reassignment voluntary? | Herkert: Given no choice; it was a demotion imposed due to performance. | SSA: Herkert gratefully accepted the new position offered. | Genuine dispute exists; jury must decide if reassignment was truly voluntary. |
| Did the reassignment constitute a reasonable accommodation? | Herkert: Involuntary transfer to a less desirable position is not reasonable. | SSA: She received requested telework in new position. | District court must reconsider, as voluntariness and adversity are in dispute. |
| Standard for adverse action under discrimination/retaliation | Herkert: No significance threshold post-Muldrow; standard is "disadvantage." | SSA: Old standard required significant harm still applicable. | Post-Muldrow, only "some disadvantageous change" is required for discrimination claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, 601 U.S. 346 (2024) (clarified that an employment action need not cause significant harm to be considered adverse for discrimination claims)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) ("materially adverse" standard for Title VII retaliation claims)
- James v. Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc., 368 F.3d 371 (4th Cir. 2004) (previous Fourth Circuit significant harm test for adverse employment actions)
- Laurent-Workman v. Wormuth, 54 F.4th 201 (4th Cir. 2022) (scope of retaliatory adverse actions under Title VII)