2024 Kansas Labor & Employment Year End Review

Wichita, Kan. (February 24, 2025) - This alert discusses the major developments in Kansas labor and employment law from the previous year, including tax credits for individuals with disabilities, earned wage access legislation, employers’ filing requirements related to unemployment, and recent U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas holdings.

Senate Bill 15

Senate Bill 15 was signed into law by Governor Laura Kelly on February 8, 2024. It made significant changes to the state's disability employment initiatives. The legislation extended and expanded the Disability Employment Act tax credit program, which provided tax benefits to businesses that purchase goods and services from qualified vendors employing individuals with disabilities. The bill increased the program's funding cap from $5 million to $8 million annually starting in 2024, broadened the definition of qualifying disabilities to include those certified by healthcare providers, and expanded the types of organizations that could qualify as vendors. Notably, the bill also created the Sheltered Workshop Transition Grant Program, which provided matching grants to help employers transition away from paying subminimum wages under Section 214(c) certificates toward paying at least minimum wage to all employees with disabilities. The grant program, funded at $1 million annually through 2034, required employers to submit detailed transition plans and match the state funds dollar-for-dollar. This comprehensive legislation represented a significant step toward promoting integrated employment opportunities and fair wages for individuals with disabilities in Kansas.

House Bill 2560

House Bill 2560 was signed into law by Governor Kelly on April 19, 2024. The newly enacted law, the Kansas Earned Wage Services Act, places Kansas at the forefront of the topic of earned wage services, as being an earlier adopter of legislation that regulates earned wage access providers operating in the State. Earned wage access allows workers, especially those who are low-wage and hourly, to have access to some of their accrued wages before the end of an employer’s payroll cycle. In exchange for the access, the provider would charge a flat fee, in contrast to a payday lender that charges interest. The law sets out prohibitions to prevent predatory conduct on the part of earned wage services providers, including engaging in debt collection and taking actions to negatively affect an individual’s credit score. The law also permits school bus drivers employed by private companies to participate in work-share programs during academic breaks and modified various technical aspects of the unemployment system's administration.

House Bill 2570

House Bill 2570 was signed into law by Governor Kelly on April 24, 2024. The legislation introduced substantial modifications to the unemployment tax structure, including a progressive increase in the taxable wage base from the previous $14,000 to a percentage of the statewide average annual wage, set to reach 40% by 2030. The bill implemented new employer-friendly provisions, such as reduced contribution rates for new employers, an annual debt forgiveness option for certain negative-rated employers, and the creation of an audit process for "interview ghosting" (when job applicants fail to appear for scheduled interviews). Additional key changes included new minimum qualifications for Employment Security Board of Review members, modifications to temporary unemployment provisions, electronic filing requirements for larger employers, and expanded Department of Labor reporting requirements. The legislation also permitted school bus drivers employed by private companies to participate in work-share programs during academic breaks and modified various technical aspects of the unemployment system's administration.

Kansas Federal Courts Grapple with Impact of Muldrow on Hostile Work Environment Claims

In April 2024, the United States Supreme Court significantly altered the employment discrimination landscape with its decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis (April 17, 2024). At issue was whether an employee challenging a job transfer under Title VII must show that the transfer caused them “significant” harm or “material” disadvantage. In a decision authored by Justice Kagan, the Court rejected this heightened standard that many circuits had adopted.

Sergeant Jatonya Clayborn Muldrow worked as a plainclothes officer in the St. Louis Police Department’s Intelligence Division. In 2017, her new commander transferred her to a uniformed position, allegedly because of her gender, seeking to replace her with a male officer. While Muldrow‘s rank and pay remained the same, her new role involved different responsibilities, a less regular schedule including weekend shifts, and loss of certain perks like an unmarked take-home vehicle.

The Eighth Circuit affirmed dismissal of Muldrow‘s discrimination claim, holding that she failed to show the transfer caused a “materially significant disadvantage.” The Supreme Court reversed, establishing a new, lower threshold: an employee need only show “some harm” or “some ‘disadvantageous’ change” to an identifiable term or condition of employment. The Court emphasized that Title VII’s text nowhere requires harm to be significant or substantial.

Notably, the Court distinguished between discrimination claims and retaliation claims. For retaliation, the Court preserved the higher standard requiring “significant” harm established in Burlington Northern v. White – an action serious enough to dissuade a reasonable worker from making discrimination complaints. But for underlying discrimination claims, the Court rejected any heightened harm requirement, reasoning that Title VII “flatly prevents injury to individuals based on status, without distinguishing between significant and less significant harms.”

A. Kansas Courts Grapple with Muldrow’s Impact on Hostile Work Environment Claims

In the months following Muldrow v. City of Saint Louis, 601 U.S. 346 (2024), Kansas federal courts have largely resisted applying its “some harm” standard to hostile work environment claims. A review of recent decisions from the District of Kansas reveals that most judges continue to apply the traditional “severe or pervasive” standard, seemingly viewing Muldrow as limited to discrete discriminatory acts like transfers.

For instance, in Blaine v. Mystere Living & Healthcare, Inc., No. 22-cv-02471-TC, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132201, at *15-23 (D. Kan. July 25, 2024), Judge Crouse applied traditional hostile work environment standards requiring proof that the workplace was “permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule and insult” that was sufficiently “severe or pervasive.” While citing Muldrow elsewhere in the opinion when discussing retaliation, the court did not incorporate Muldrow’s relaxed “some harm” standard into its hostile work environment analysis. Id. at 24-28.

Similarly, in Bradley v. Unified Gov’t of Wyandotte Cnty., No. 2:23-CV-2088-JAR, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148659 (D. Kan. Aug. 20, 2024), Judge Robinson made no reference to Muldrow when analyzing a hostile work environment claim, instead adhering to pre-Muldrow standards. Even when presented with evidence of racially offensive conduct, including a racist Obama cartoon, the court continued to evaluate whether such incidents were sufficiently severe or pervasive under traditional standards. Id. at 37-41.

This pattern repeated in Woods v. Edelman Fin. Engines, LLC, No. 2:23-cv-02259-HLT, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152555, at *21-22 (D. Kan. Aug. 26, 2024), where Judge Teeter’s opinion, though decided months after Muldrow, did not incorporate Muldrow‘s framework into its hostile work environment analysis. The court relied on pre-Muldrow precedent requiring proof of severe or pervasive harassment creating an abusive working environment.

In Mirza v. UWorld, LLC, No. 23-CV-2208-EFM, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163486, at *13-15 (D. Kan. Sept. 11, 2024), Judge Melgren extensively discussed Muldrow in analyzing the plaintiff’s gender and race discrimination claims but notably declined to apply it to the hostile work environment analysis, instead maintaining the traditional severe or pervasive standard.

Finally, in Russell v. Wormuth, No. 22-4035-DDC, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 203035, at n.6 (D. Kan. Nov. 7, 2024), Judge Crabtree explicitly considered but rejected applying Muldrow to hostile work environment claims, noting that another district court had held that Muldrow does not alter the hostile work environment framework given the Supreme Court’s long history of defining those requirements.

B. An Emerging Evolution: Judge Vratil’s Post-Muldrow Analysis

Beginning with Juarez v. Midwest Div., No. 23-2417-KHV, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201037 (D. Kan. Nov. 5, 2024), Judge Vratil charted a different course. In Juarez, Judge Vratil devoted significant attention to Muldrow‘s implications, expressing frustration that the parties failed to address how Muldrow impacted hostile work environment analysis. Id. at *12-19. Frustration with the parties’ briefing aside, Judge Vratil indicated that Muldrow’s implications extend to hostile work environment claims through their shared foundation in adverse employment actions affecting terms and conditions of employment. Id. at *15-18. By recognizing that a hostile work environment itself constitutes a “term of employment,” Judge Vratil bridged Muldrow’s “some harm” standard from tangible employment acts to hostile work environment analysis. Id. at *17-18.

Judge Vratil expanded this framework in EEOC v. Chipotle Servs., LLC, No. 23-2439-KHV, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218300, at *19-20 (D. Kan. Dec. 3, 2024), where she explicitly viewed the hostile work environment claim “through the lens of Muldrow,” asking whether the plaintiff suffered “some harm” rather than applying the traditional “severe or pervasive” standard.

This evolution in Judge Vratil’s analysis raises a fundamental question left unresolved by Muldrow: If “some harm” is sufficient for discrete discriminatory acts, how can courts justify requiring harassment to be “severe or pervasive”? While most Kansas courts have continued applying traditional hostile work environment standards, Judge Vratil’s recent opinions suggest Muldrow may require reconceptualizing hostile work environment doctrine.

Although there is no such thing as the law of the district, there is now a split of authority within the District of Kansas based on the holding discussed in Russell. No. 22-4035-DDC, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 203035 (D. Kan. Nov. 7, 2024).

C. Conclusion

Until the Tenth Circuit provides guidance, the tension between Muldrow’s emphasis on Title VII’s text and traditional hostile work environment analysis is likely to persist. The divergent approaches to Muldrow’s application highlight a broader uncertainty in employment discrimination law. While Muldrow clearly lowered the bar for challenging discrete discriminatory acts, its impact on hostile work environment claims remains unsettled.

The current split within the District of Kansas creates meaningful challenges for practitioners advising their clients. The substantial difference between “some harm” and “severe or pervasive” standards means that similar factual scenarios could lead to different outcomes depending on the assigned judge. This makes it difficult for attorneys to provide clear guidance about whether particular conduct is actionable. Employers face particular uncertainty when developing workplace policies, as the applicable standard significantly impacts what conduct might merit further investigation or response. Until the Tenth Circuit provides guidance on Muldrow’s application to hostile work environment claims, both plaintiffs and defendants must navigate this uncertainty.

For more information on these developments, contact the author or editors of this alert. Visit our Labor & Employment Practice page for additional alerts in this area.

Author:

Marco Tarantino, Associate

Editors:

Blake M. Edwards, Partner

Alan L. Rupe, Managing Partner - Wichita & Kansas City