No. 24-1404 MIKO THOMAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JBS GREEN BAY, INC., Defendant-Appellee. ____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. No. 23-C-861 — William C. Griesbach, Judge. ____________________

ARGUED OCTOBER 29, 2024 — DECIDED NOVEMBER 8, 2024 ____________________

Before EASTERBROOK, JACKSON-AKIWUMI, and MALDONADO, Circuit Judges. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge. In this suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000e to §2000e–17, Miko Thomas contends that his employer, JBS Green Bay, dis- criminated against him on account of his color. His complaint alleges seven discriminatory acts or related sets of acts, of which we discuss three: (1) the employer delayed for three years his training on a particular machine; (2) the employer 2 No. 24-1404 denied his request for vacation time while granting equiva- lent requests by other workers; and (3) the employer trans- ferred him to a different shift even though it knew that this caused him problems in raising a young child. The district court dismissed the complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 219755 (E.D. Wis. Dec. 11, 2023). After Thomas amended the complaint, the district court dismissed the suit outright. 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48841 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 15, 2024). The judge saw two problems that ran through both complaints: first, the events of which Thomas complains are not sufficiently serious to be cognizable under Title VII; second, the complaints did not lay out every element or ingredient that Thomas eventually would need to prove. In other words, the judge demanded that the complaint include allegations corresponding to each component of the proof that Thomas would need to defeat a motion for summary judgment. Both aspects of the judge’s decisions are mistaken. Whether or not the first aspect (insufficient injury) re- flected circuit law at the time, it has been overtaken by Mul- drow v. St. Louis, 601 U.S. 346, 355 (2024), which says that a Title VII plaintiff “must show some harm respecting an iden- tifiable term or condition of employment. What the [plaintiff] does not have to show, according to the relevant text, is that the harm incurred was ‘significant.’ Or serious, or substantial, or any similar adjective suggesting that the disadvantage to the employee must exceed a heightened bar” (cleaned up). Decisions requiring allegations of “significant” or “material” injury did not survive Muldrow. Each of the three things we have mentioned entails “some harm”. Deferred training can mean deferred promotions or No. 24-1404 3 deferred raises. Denial of one’s preferred vacation schedule can make the vacation less pleasant—not just because it may end up off-season at the destination but also because the goal of a vacation may be to see family members who will not be available at a different time. Title VII does not permit employ- ers to confine that pleasure to workers of particular colors; it must distribute fringe benefits equally. Likewise with the third allegation: if the employer considers family circum- stances when assigning shifts, it must do so without regard to color, because inability to care for a child is a deeply felt loss for all parents. Demanding details about loss in the complaint—as op- posed to the summary-judgment stage—also is a problem be- cause complaints need not plead damages. Special damages yes, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(g), but ordinary injuries no. Prevail- ing parties receive the relief to which they are entitled, no matter what was i