Why an easier discrimination standard still couldn’t save this harassment and retaliation case

The Supreme Court recently made it easier for employees to prove discrimination, lowering the bar from “serious harm” to “some harm.” That change came from a 2024 sex discrimination case, but its reasoning can influence other Title VII claims too. A new decision from the federal court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania shows that even when courts apply that softer standard to quid pro quo harassment claims, retaliation still requires a higher level of proof, and neither test was met here.

TL;DR: A tenured researcher claimed sexual harassment and retaliation after refusing to “work together again” with a senior leader she had accused of harassment years earlier. Soon after, she was denied a letter of support she needed for a federal grant, which kept her from applying in the first funding round. She later got the letter, after filing a discrimination complaint, but did not get funded. The court said this was not enough to prove harassment or retaliation. Missing one grant cycle did not change her pay, job security, or working conditions.
👉 Read the decision

A long history leads to a new dispute

Nearly ten years after a senior leader was told not to contact a researcher who had accused him of harassment, he emailed her about “working together again.” She declined.

Months later, she applied for a federal research grant that required an institutional letter of support. She claimed the employer withheld the letter because she refused to reengage with him, forcing her to miss the first grant deadline. After she filed a complaint with the Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations, she eventually got the letter and resubmitted, but the grant was not funded.

What legal standards the court used

Judge Karen Marston reviewed two remaining claims: quid pro quo sexual harassment and retaliation.

For the harassment claim, the court analyzed both the traditional “tangible employment action” standard from Burlington Industries v. Ellerth and the newer “some harm” test from the Supreme Court’s Muldrow decision. The judge assumed that Muldrow’s lower threshold for discrimination cases could apply to quid pro quo harassment claims, but found that even under that easier test, the plaintiff’s alleged harm—missing one grant opportunity—was too speculative to qualify.
For the retaliation claim, the court applied the long-standing Burlington Northern v. White “materially adverse” standard. That test asks whether the employer’s action would dissuade a reasonable employee from reporting discrimination. The judge emphasized that this test remains stricter than Muldrow’s and concluded it was not met here either.

Why the employer won

No change to pay or position. Missing one grant opportunity did not affect her salary, benefits, or job security. Her tenure guaranteed stability even without that grant.
No “some harm” for harassment. Even with the Supreme Court’s newer, lower threshold for discrimination cases, the harm was too speculative. Losing one chance to apply for a competitive grant was not a change to her work conditions.
No retaliation under the law. The denial of a single support letter would not discourage a reasonable employee from complaining, particularly where pay, position, and performance remained intact.

What this means for HR and management

A lower legal standard still needs workplace impact. Even though the Supreme Court eased the burden for discrimination and harassment claims, the harm must still relate to an employee’s job — such as pay, duties, or security — not simply a missed opportunity or an administrative delay.
Tie opportunity decisions to clear, objective criteria. The employer won because the court found the loss of one grant opportunity too speculative to count as harm. Keep transparent, documented processes for approving or denying internal support so those decisions are easier to defend.
Keep communication boundaries consistent. Here, a leader who was previously told not to contact the employee reached out again years later. If your company sets “no-contact” or separation terms after a complaint, ensure they are tracked and enforced.
Coach managers on tone and timing. Even friendly outreach from someone involved in a prior complaint can be misinterpreted. Train managers to route communication through HR in those situations.
Make retaliation definitions clear in policy and training. Retaliation requires a concrete employment consequence, not just interpersonal friction or denied collaboration. Managers don’t need to be legal experts, but they should understand enough to spot potential retaliation and know when to loop in HR or legal. Training should include clear examples that show what counts as real job harm.

The bottom line for employers

The Supreme Court may have lowered the threshold for proving harm in discrimination cases, but this ruling shows that courts still expect to see a real employment impact. HR teams should focus on preventing genuine job harm and documenting when a decision does not cause any.