Labor Letter, September 2013: Supreme Court Tightens Standard In Retaliation Cases

by Fisher Phillips
Contact

As the U.S. Supreme Court ended its most recent term with a number of cases that will have broad societal implications, one employment law case decided by the Court seems to have taken somewhat of a back seat, despite the significant effect it will have on retaliation claims arising out of workplace discrimination complaints. 

In University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, the Court held that an employee asserting a Title VII claim of unlawful retaliation must prove that a retaliatory motive was the “but for” cause of any adverse employment action.  This decision will make it significantly more difficult for employees to establish retaliatory motive, although by no means does it signal a death knell for retaliation claims in general.

Putting It In Context

Over the past 15 years, the number of EEOC charges alleging retaliation has doubled.  In 1997 there were 16,394 Title VII retaliation charges filed with the EEOC.  In 2012 there were 31,208 Title VII retaliation charges filed, outpacing all other charges filed save for race discrimination.

There are several reasons why the increase in retaliation charges has occurred.  First, the total number of charges for all forms of discrimination filed between 1997 and 2012 has increased by almost 25%.  With more charges filed, the number of retaliation charges was bound to rise as well.  Second, since 2009, the Labor Department has hired additional investigators and has signaled a more aggressive approach to Title VII enforcement.  This arguably encourages more people to come forward and file charges. 

Third, the Supreme Court’s 2006 decision in Burlington Northern v. White clarified, and in many areas of the country expanded, the scope of what constituted an adverse employment action giving rise to a valid claim of retaliation.  With a broader definition of what constitutes retaliation, more people have been able to bring retaliation claims.  Fourth – and perhaps most significantly – many courts have applied a “mixed-motive standard” that has enabled employees to prevail in retaliation claims

Confusion Over Mixed-Motives

In 1991, Congress amended Title VII to state that “an unlawful employment practice is established when the complaining party demonstrates that race, color, religion, or national origin was a motivating factor for any employment practice, even though other factors also motivated the practice.”   This mixed-motive standard requires only that an employee establish that his or her protected status was a reason for the employment practice, but not necessarily the sole reason.

But Congress also amended Title VII to prohibit an employee’s recovery of monetary damages and reinstatement if an employer demonstrates that it would have taken the same action regardless of any impermissible motivating factor for the unlawful employment action.   

These amendments created confusion as to whether the new mixed-motive standard applied to all Title VII claims, including retaliation, or whether it applied only to discrimination claims.  The Nassar case brought this confusion before the Supreme Court for clarification.

The Background

Dr. Naiel Nassar, who is of Middle Eastern descent, held a faculty position at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center.  He also held a staff position at Dallas Parkland Hospital, with which the university was affiliated. 

Nassar complained that his supervisor at the university treated him differently than his colleagues, including unfairly scrutinizing his billing practices and attempting to delay his promotion.  He also claimed that his supervisor made derogatory comments about individuals of Middle Eastern descent. 

At least in part to no longer work for his supervisor, Nassar requested that he be allowed to resign his faculty position with the university and continue working as an employee of the hospital.  Nassar’s department chair at the university, who also supervised the alleged harasser, objected to the request, citing an affiliation agreement requiring that all physicians working at the hospital be faculty members at the university.  Without the university’s knowledge, Nassar continued to discuss his plan with the hospital.  The hospital offered Nassar a position if he resigned his faculty position with the university. 

As a result, Nassar submitted a resignation letter to the university in which he claimed that he was giving up his faculty position because of the “harassment and discrimination” by his supervisor.  Nassar’s department chair at the university and the hospital’s Chief Medical Officer met and discussed the complaints outlined in Nassar’s resignation letter.  The hospital thereafter revoked its offer to Nassar.

Nassar then filed suit against the university, claiming constructive discharge and retaliation.  With respect to his retaliation claim, Nassar alleged that his department chair blocked the hospital from hiring him because of his complaints against his supervisor.  The university argued that the department chair’s actions were consistent with the affiliation agreement, and that the same actions would have been taken in the absence of Nassar’s complaints. 

The trial court applied a mixed-motive standard, instructing the jury that Nassar only needed to prove that retaliation was a motivating factor for the university’s actions.  At trial, Nassar prevailed on his retaliation claim.  On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit agreed that the trial court had correctly applied a mixed-motive standard and had properly instructed the jury.

The Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Supreme Court rejected the mixed-motive standard applied by the trial court.  In so doing, the Court limited the mixed-motive analysis solely to “status-based discrimination” claims.  That is, claims alleging discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin.

As for retaliation claims, the high Court held that an employee must establish that a retaliatory motive was the “but for” cause of the adverse employment action.  In other words, an employee must prove that the adverse employment action would not have occurred in the absence of discriminatory intent.

In reaching this holding, the Court attributed the rise in retaliation claims over the past 15 years to the application of the mixed-motive standard.  To illustrate, the Court noted that poor performers at a worksite who knew they were likely to face termination, transfer, demotion, or other adverse employment action could attempt to forestall the otherwise lawful yet undesired change in employment circumstances by simply asserting an unfounded charge of status-based discrimination.  Then, if the employer proceeded with the adverse employment action, the employee could claim it was retaliation for the filing of the charge.

The Significance Of Nasser

Without question, the Court’s ruling in Nassar is a significant victory for employers.  It is now more difficult for employees to prevail on Title VII retaliation claims, since they must prove that a retaliatory motive was the reason, not simply a reason, for an adverse employment action.  With this “but for” standard, the burden of proof will not shift to the employer on the retaliation claim.  Procedurally, the “but-for” standard will enable employers to more readily seek and obtain dismissal of retaliation claims through summary judgment.

From a practical standpoint, the most significant benefit of the Nassar decision to employers is this:  employers that are preparing a well-documented and justifiable plan of action, such as termination based on performance issues, may feel more secure in proceeding as planned even though the employee has engaged in a protected activity such as the filing of a status-based charge of discrimination.  That is, employers need no longer feel obligated to place an otherwise lawful termination, demotion, transfer, or other similar action on indefinite hold.

Despite the foregoing, any dire prediction of open season on employees who file discrimination charges is vastly overblown.  The applicable legal standard has been clarified, but the cause of action remains.  Employees will still prevail in meritorious retaliation claims.  Employers must remain mindful of their obligation to avoid adverse employment actions that lack sufficient justification.  As such, employers must still document performance issues; prepare honest, objective, and constructive performance evaluations; and consider how issues with similarly-situated employees were addressed prior to taking any adverse employment action.

Written by:

Fisher Phillips
Contact
more
less

Fisher Phillips on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.