But For Causation

News & Analysis as of

Warning: An EEOC Position Statement Can and Will Be Used Against Your Company

Why was an employee fired? Was it the company’s change in business focus that rendered the employee’s skill set obsolete? A position statement to the EEOC or a state agency that articulates the employer’s reasons in a poorly...more

The Meaning of “But-For” Harassment: The Second Circuit Breaks Its Silence and it is not Good for Employers

In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Title VII retaliation claims must be proven according to traditional principles of “but-for” causation. Since Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 133 S. Ct. 2517 (2013), ...more

New Causation Standard for Title VII Retaliation Claims

It can be difficult for employers to decide how to address employee misconduct when that employee has reported discrimination and the investigation is ongoing. The fear of prompting a retaliation claim can create paralysis. ...more

Are Title VII Retaliation Claims Dead Post-Nassar?

This June, the U.S. Supreme Court announced the causation standard for Title VII retaliations claims in the landmark case of University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, 133 S. Ct. 2517, 2533 (2013),...more

Supreme Court Update: University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar

The United States Supreme Court recently raised the bar for plaintiffs attempting to bring Title VII retaliation claims. In University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, 133 S.Ct. 2517 (2013), the Court...more

“Something More” Than “But For” Required In The Ninth Circuit

The Ninth Circuit recently reversed a ruling by the U.S. District Court of Nevada granting summary judgment in favor of the SEC in a case alleging violations of Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with the...more

Nassar’s “But For” Requirement Breaks the Chain for Retaliation Plaintiffs Relying on Temporal Proximity to Establish Causation

In a decision in favor of the University of Pennsylvania entered on August 7, 2013, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the “but for” standard for liability under University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v....more

Supreme Court Delivers Victory To Employers, But Dissent Calls Upon Congress To Act

The Supreme Court recently delivered a victory for employers by holding that plaintiffs who sue their employers for alleged retaliation under Title VII must prove their claims according to the “but for” causation standard...more

Fenwick Employment Brief - July 2013: Employee Claiming Retaliation Must Meet Higher Standard of Proof

In another favorable ruling for employers, the Supreme Court in University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar clarified that employees must satisfy a higher “but for” standard of proof to prevail in a Title VII...more

A Review Of The Supreme Court’s 2012-2013 Term

As the United States Supreme Court’s 2012-2013 term drew to a close at the end of June, commentators observed a continuing gradual but perceptible shift to the right by the Court. The Roberts Court is generally viewed as...more

California Employment Law Notes - July 2013

Employee Must Prove That Illegal Retaliation Was The "But For" Cause Of Adverse Job Action Under Title VII - University of Tex. S.W. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. ___, 2013 WL 3155234 (2013) - The United States...more

Retaliation Under Title VII Must Be Proven Under Traditional “But For” Causation Doctrine

Where a person seeks compensation for injury resulting from wrongful conduct, there must be a demonstrated connection between the wrong alleged and the injury — i.e., causation. The default rule, developed in connection with...more

Employees Must Prove Retaliation Was “But-For” Cause of Employment Action

Employers are well aware that poorly performing employees may lodge baseless retaliation claims as a smokescreen to interfere with legitimate discipline....more

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

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...more

Impact of Supreme Court Pro-Employer Title VII Decisions Blunted by State Laws

On June 24th, the Supreme Court issued two important decisions that narrow the circumstances under which employers can be held liable for retaliation or harassment claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In...more

Employment Law -- Jul 03, 2013

Excerpt from Supreme Court Sides With Employers in Title VII Suits - Capping off a term of big decisions with employer-friendly results, the U.S. Supreme Court weighed in on two major employment issues in a pair of...more

Law360 Quotes Steve Pearlman on Landmark Supreme Court Ruling Regarding Title VII Retaliation Standard

In a Law360 article (subscription required), Steven J. Pearlman, co-head of Proskauer’s Whistleblower & Retaliation Group, recently commented on the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in University of Texas Southwestern...more

The "But For" Causation Test Upheld in Context of Insurance Brokers' Advice: Godina v. Tripemco

Under the Statutory Accident Benefits Scheduled (“SABS”) to the Insurance Act, the standard minimum amount of income replacement benefits is $400.00. As we know, however, additional optional coverage is available under the...more

Defending Nonsubscriber Lifting Injuries – Part VIII – “But For” Causation

Regardless of what factual theory of negligence a lifting injury plaintiff pursues, the plaintiff must prove that the negligence of the defendant caused the injury at issue. As simple as this concept appears, the nature of...more

Employers Win Big In Two New U.S. Supreme Court Cases

The Supreme Court ruled that a plaintiff asserting retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) must prove that the retaliation was the “but for” cause of the employer’s adverse action....more

Burr Alert: Historic Supreme Court Term Includes Two Favorable Decisions For Employers

News agencies flocked to Washington D.C. to witness the end of the United States Supreme Court's October 2012 term expecting something momentous. Handing down historic decisions on such controversial issues as affirmative...more

Supreme Court Limits Employer Liability in Title VII Cases

The United States Supreme Court (“Court”) issued two decisions on June 24, 2013, significantly limiting employer liability in discrimination cases brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et...more

Employment And Labor Insight: Employers Win Big Before The U.S. Supreme Court

As the United States Supreme Court wraps up its term, employers should take note of three decisions issued this past Monday, June 24....more

A Summary of the U.S. Supreme Court Decisions This Week Which Will Affect Employers

Windsor v. United States - Issue: Can the federal government define marriage? Holding: No. Loser: The federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which was passed in 1996 and signed by President Clinton, was...more

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...more

44 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 2