Title VII Claims Evolve: Fifth Circuit’s Landmark Decision Expands Scope of Adverse Employment Actions

  • Home
  • /
  • Blog
  • /
  • Title VII Claims Evolve: Fifth Circuit’s Landmark Decision Expands Scope of Adverse Employment Actions
Attorney Harrison Oldham




In a landmark ruling that has far-reaching implications for Title VII claims in the Fifth Circuit, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which holds jurisdiction over Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, recently overturned a long-standing precedent. The court’s decision, issued on August 18, 2023, in the case of Hamilton v. Dallas County (No. 21-10133), marked a significant departure from its previous stance on what constitutes an adverse employment action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This ruling aligns the Fifth Circuit with numerous other federal appellate courts and brings the circuit in line with established Supreme Court precedent.


Background and Precedent

For nearly three decades, the Fifth Circuit maintained that an “adverse employment action” under Title VII had to be an action considered an “ultimate employment decision.” These ultimate employment decisions were interpreted to include actions such as hiring, firing, promotions, granting leave, and determining compensation. This narrow interpretation of adverse employment actions set the Fifth Circuit apart from other circuits and led to the dismissal of numerous claims that might have succeeded in different jurisdictions.

In April 2019, the Dallas County Sheriff’s Department transitioned from a seniority-based scheduling policy to a gender-based scheduling policy pursuant to which only male detention offers were given full weekends off from work. In contrast, the female detention officers were limited to either two weekdays off or one weekday and one weekend day off. The policy was based on a gender-based assumption that it was safer for male officers to take weekends off. Nine female detention officers sued Dallas County, alleging that this policy constituted sex discrimination in violation of Title VII.

The trial court dismissed the case because the weekend scheduling policy, while discriminatory, did not meet the Fifth Circuit’s previous “ultimate employment decision” standard. The case was subsequently appealed.

On appeal, a panel for the Fifth Circuit observed that the officers had alleged direct evidence of discrimination, which courts “rarely encounter.” The court further noted that the conduct complained of by the female officers “fit . . . squarely within the ambit of Title VII’s proscribed conduct: discrimination with respect to the terms, conditions, or privileges of one’s employment because of one’s sex.”

In August 2022, the Fifth Circuit, relying on its decades old precedent, upheld the dismissal of the Title VII claims, finding that the weekend scheduling policy did not amount to an “ultimate employment decision” for the same reasons as the trial court. However, despite affirming the dismissal, the 2022 decision noted that the “case was the ideal vehicle” for en banc review to align the Fifth Circuit with the text of Title VII. The Fifth Circuit ultimately considered the case en banc (meaning it was decided by the full court instead of a 3-judge panel).


The En Banc Decision

In the en banc decision rendered on August 18, 2023, the Fifth Circuit overturned its previous precedent, noting that the “ultimate employment decision” standard was flawed and inconsistent with the language of Title VII itself. The court reasoned that Title VII explicitly prohibits discrimination with respect to the “terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.” The former standard limited claims to only a specific set of employment decisions, disregarding this broader language.

The court emphasized that the days and hours an employee works are integral components of their employment conditions and should not be excluded from the scope of Title VII. The Fifth Circuit’s ruling recognized that workplace schedules and conditions are pivotal aspects of employment that can affect employees’ well-being and rights.


Impact and Implications

The Hamilton decision has several implications for employers, employees, and the Fifth Circuit’s legal landscape:

  1. Expanded Definition of Adverse Employment Action: The Fifth Circuit’s decision broadens the range of actions that could potentially be considered adverse employment actions under Title VII. This expansion may lead to an increase in discrimination claims based on workplace policies, schedules, and conditions.
  2. Uniformity Across Circuits: The Fifth Circuit now joins numerous other federal appellate courts that have already adopted a broader understanding of adverse employment actions. This alignment contributes to a more consistent application of Title VII claims across jurisdictions, and allows the Fifth Circuit to learn from years of precedent in other jurisdictions across the country.
  3. Unanswered Questions: While the ruling eliminates the “ultimate employment decision” requirement, it leaves some questions unanswered. For example, the court did not define the minimum level of harm required to support a claim, leaving room for further interpretation in future cases.
  4. Pending Supreme Court Case: The Supreme Court’s recent grant of certiorari in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis adds to the evolving landscape of Title VII claims. This case addresses the question of whether Title VII prohibits discrimination in transfer decisions without requiring a separate determination of significant disadvantage. The resolution of this case could impact the interpretation of adverse employment actions in the context of transfers.


In Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit’s landmark decision in Hamilton v. Dallas County reflects the evolving nature of Title VII claims and emphasizes the need for employers to foster equal and fair workplace environments. While the ruling broadens the scope of adverse employment actions, it also underscores the importance of maintaining workplace policies and practices that are non-discriminatory and in compliance with federal law. As the legal landscape continues to evolve, employers and employees alike should stay informed about these developments to ensure their rights and responsibilities are appropriately upheld.


Want even more advice, given just to you? Sign Up for an annual membership today and receive unlimited advice from SPHR Certified pros & our “Ask An Attorney” blog found only with our Annual Membership. Learn More Here


About Harrison Oldham

Harrison grew up in Mansfield, Texas. He attended Texas A&M University for his bachelor’s degree, where he met his wonderful wife, Kelsey. After graduating magna cum laude from Texas A&M, he attended SMU Dedman School of Law, graduating with honors in 2012. Today, Harrison and his wife live in Dallas, Texas with their son, Teddy.

Since graduating from SMU Law, Harrison has worked exclusively in the field of business law. He has spent time in private practice and in-house, working with clients of every size; from single person startups to Fortune 250 companies. Today his practice focuses on serving the diverse needs of businesses and individuals throughout Texas. You can learn more about Harrison by visiting his website, at: http://lonestarbusinesslaw.com/.

Log in or Register to save this content for later.