Supreme Court Applies “But-For” Standard To Title VII Retaliation Claims

more+
less-

Also on June 24, 2013, the Supreme Court addressed the standard courts should apply to determine whether an employer violates Title VII's anti-retaliation provision. Because of a statutory amendment in 1991, courts apply a "motivating factor" test for Title VII discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, and religion. The anti-retaliation provision however is in a separate section of Title VII, and the Supreme Court has decided to apply the traditional test: retaliatory animus is not the "cause" of the materially adverse action if the materially adverse action would have occurred without the animus. This is what the courts call "but-for" causation. The adverse action would not happen but for the retaliatory animus. University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, No. 12-484 (U.S. June 24, 2013).

In reaching this conclusion, the Court found the EEOC's position on this issue to be unpersuasive. The EEOC failed to appreciate the "interplay" among statutory provisions on status-based discrimination, the motivating-factor amendment, and the anti-retaliation provision.


DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Sherman & Howard L.L.C. | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

more+
less-

Sherman & Howard L.L.C. on:

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 to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*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.
×
Loading...
×
×