U.S. Supreme Court Rejects the Mixed-Motive Analysis in Retaliation Claims

The U.S. Supreme Court held on Monday that a plaintiff alleging retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) must prove that retaliation was the “but-for” reason for an adverse employment decision. The mixed-motive analysis, whereby a plaintiff need only show that the illegal reason played a part in the decision, now no longer applies to retaliation cases.

In University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, plaintiff, a university faculty member and hospital staff physician, alleged that he was harassed by another faculty member because of his race and religion. Plaintiff claimed that the faculty member’s supervisor blocked his attempts to retain his hospital position, without remaining on the university faculty, in retaliation for plaintiff’s complaints of harassment.

At trial, the jury ruled in favor of plaintiff on his retaliation claim. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that, to prevail on his retaliation claim, plaintiff need only show that retaliation was a “motivating factor” (i.e., that it played a part)  in the challenged adverse employment action. Because there was sufficient evidence upon which the jury could find that retaliation was a motivating factor, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the jury’s verdict on the retaliation claim.

In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Fifth Circuit, holding that, to prevail on a retaliation claim, a plaintiff must show that the adverse employment action would not have occurred “but-for” the protected activity (e.g., plaintiff’s complaints that he was harassed). In so ruling, the Court found that the plain language of § 2000e-2(m) shows that Congress intended to limit the mixed-motive analysis to only status-based discrimination claims involving race, color, religion, sex and national origin.

This decision clarifies that the burden of proof in a retaliation case, like that in an age discrimination claim, is a heavy one that must be borne only by the plaintiff. Practically, because a plaintiff will ultimately have to prove that retaliation was the “but-for” reason for the adverse action, the decision makes it likely that fewer cases will survive summary judgment.

 

Written by:

Published In:

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.

© Orrick - Global Employment Law Group | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, 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.
×
Loading...
×