§ 2000e-2(a)(1), states that it is illegal to discriminate "with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."

By the mid 1990s, plaintiffs were expected to prove that the discriminatory employment action was "materially adverse" to qualify for Title VII protections, a standard which was interpreted to exclude lateral transfers, in which one retains similar pay and benefits while shifted into a different position.

[3][4] Under the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit's "ultimate employment decision" standard, plaintiffs could only bring Title VII claims in cases of discriminatory hiring, firing, compensation, and/or placement on leave.

[5] In 2017, the District Court for Western Louisiana applied this standard to deny Title VII protections to an employee alleging racial and religious discrimination in punishments for lateness and access to air conditioning.

[6] Responding to academic and judicial criticism of the material adversity standard, Judge Brett Kavanaugh of the Court of Appeals for the D.C.

[14] On behalf of Ms. Muldrow, the case was argued by Brian Wolfman, Director of the Georgetown Law Appellate Courts Immersion Clinic, who split the argument time with Deputy Solicitor General Aimee Brown.

[15] Robert Loeb, a partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe argued the case for St. Louis Police Department.