Tag: Suja Thomas

The Supreme Court issued a decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis on April 17, 2024, ruling in favor of a female police sergeant who said she was unlawfully transferred from the intelligence division to a less prestigious patrol position because she is a woman. The case had previously been dismissed by a federal appeals court; the Supreme Court said that “while an employee must show more than trifling harm from an employer’s discriminatory action, the appeals court had raised the bar too high.” While the decision is seen as a win for workers, employment discrimination expert and professor Suja Thomas worries that workers still face many hurdles getting discrimination claims before juries. Speaking to the Wall Street Journal about the decision, she said, “Unfortunately, there are lots of other ways courts are dismissing these cases.”

Read the full story.

Professor Suja Thomas’s documentary worked received another boost this fall when she was announced as the winner of the annual Ready, Set, Pitch! contest. Put on by the Center for Asian American Media, the contest showcased diverse Asian American storytelling from emerging documentary filmmakers from the Midwest and South. Thomas’s as-yet-untitled documentary on the U.S. court system and the importance of democracy was awarded $10,000 in support from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, which will help her complete her project. This honor follows a year-long CAAM Fellowship for Thomas, which paired her and other fellows with established professionals in the field.

Read more about this honor on the CAAM website.

Last week Illinois Law Professor Suja Thomas and Illinois Law alumna (Class of 1998) and Ohio State Visiting Law Professor Amy Wildermuth co-authored an amicus brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in the Muldrow v. City of St. Louis case. They had the research assistance of Illinois third year law student Hannah Sosenko. The case concerns whether an employer can legally act against an employee—such as transferring them—because of the employee’s protected trait—such as their sex or race. The courts have said an employer can discriminate against an employee except where the employer’s action would cause a significant disadvantage to the employee. Professors Thomas and Wildermuth have argued the plain language of the law—Title VII—prevents an employer from acting against an employee because of a protected trait, and the law’s text does not require the employer‘s action cause a significant disadvantage to the employee to be illegal. 

Read the full amicus brief online.