News & Analysis as of

But For Causation Race Discrimination

Gray Reed

Dozens of McDonald’s Corporation’s African American Franchisees Sue Alleging Pervasive Racial Discrimination

Gray Reed on

McDonald’s Corporation (“McDonald’s”) is facing two high-profile lawsuits involving allegations of race-based discrimination against franchisees and executives....more

Mintz - Employment Viewpoints

Supreme Court Clarifies Race Discrimination Claims Under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Must Meet More Stringent “But-For” Causation Standard

Bringing positive news for employers and a welcome distraction from the COVID-19 crisis, the United States Supreme Court recently held that for claims of racial discrimination under Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of...more

Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.

National Employment Perspective | Focus on Discrimination

Supreme Court Issues Unanimous Opinion Upholding But-For Causation in Section 1981 Discrimination Cases - The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a unanimous opinion holding that a plaintiff who sues for racial discrimination in...more

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP

U.S. Supreme Court Says Section 1981 Claims Require ‘But For' Causation

Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race in the making of contracts, including employment contracts. Section 1981 is often used by employees suing for race discrimination as...more

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart,...

Supreme Court Requires But-For Causation for Section 1981 Claims

On March 23, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States, in Comcast Corp. v. National Association of African-American Owned Media, ruled that a plaintiff who alleges race discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 must plead and...more

Fisher Phillips

SCOTUS Sets High Bar For Those Bringing Race Discrimination Cases

Fisher Phillips on

In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court last week ensured that a high standard will be used when assessing whether claims of race discrimination under Section 1981 should advance past the early stages of litigation....more

McAfee & Taft

U.S. Supreme Court confirms ‘but for’ causation in Section 1981 cases

McAfee & Taft on

Surrounded by the confusion and anxiety of the current COVID-19 pandemic, it may feel refreshing to step back and consider some of the basic tenets of employment law. The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Comcast Corp....more

Hinshaw & Culbertson - Employment Law...

U.S. Supreme Court Holds Section 1981 Racial Discrimination Claims Require But-For Causation

In a unanimous decision issued on March 23, 2020, the United States Supreme Court held that a but-for causation standard applies to claims brought under Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The Supreme Court also...more

Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP

Supreme Court Confirms Strict “But for” Causation Test Applies to Section 1981 Claims

On Monday, March 23, the United States Supreme Court, in a nearly unanimous opinion, ruled that a plaintiff asserting race discrimination claims in the making of a contract under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Section 1981) bears the...more

Franczek P.C.

Supreme Court Holds that Claims for Intentional Discrimination Under Section 1981 Must Meet “But For” Causation Test

Franczek P.C. on

Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act prohibits intentional race discrimination in all forms of contracting including employment. Lower courts have split as to whether a § 1981 plaintiff must prove that race was only one...more

Jackson Lewis P.C.

Supreme Court: § 1981 Suits Require Plaintiffs To Show Bias Is ‘But For’ Cause of Injury

Jackson Lewis P.C. on

Resolving a split among the federal circuit courts on the issue, the U.S. Supreme Court has decided that a plaintiff bringing suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 bears the burden of showing that the plaintiff’s race was a “but for”...more

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Supreme Court Decides Comcast Corporation v. National Association of African American-Owned Media

On March 23, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Comcast Corporation v. National Association of African American-Owned Media, No. 18-1171, holding that the but-for causation standard applies to claims of racial...more

Fisher Phillips

Pendulum To Swing Back As SCOTUS Prepares For Exciting 2019-2020 Term

Fisher Phillips on

Taking a three-year look back at the Supreme Court’s workplace law decisions gives you the sense that the exciting cases only come down every other year. In the ho-hum term that ended in 2017, the Court handled relatively...more

Bass, Berry & Sims PLC

Chris Lazarini Comments on Direct vs. Circumstantial Evidence in Discrimination Case

Bass, Berry & Sims PLC on

Bass, Berry & Sims attorney Chris Lazarini commented on a case in which a former financial advisor of JPMS claimed his employment was terminated based on racial discrimination. Through application of the three-part burden...more

Rumberger | Kirk

FCRA Retaliation Claims Require Proof of But-For Causation According to Fourth DCA

Rumberger | Kirk on

In an en banc decision by the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Palm Beach Cty. Sch. Bd. v. Wright, Case No. 4D16–112, WL 1278072 (Fla. 4th DCA Apr. 5, 2017), the court adopted a new standard on causation for Florida Civil...more

Seyfarth Shaw LLP

Still Cookin’ In California Court: Bakery Employer Survives EEOC Motion For Summary Judgment

Seyfarth Shaw LLP on

In what has become an oft-used recipe in the EEOC cookbook of Title VII retaliation litigation, the government has once again utilized the strategy of taking an employer’s deposition and thereafter moving for summary...more

Seyfarth Shaw LLP

Causation In Federal Remedial Rights And Alternative Pleading

Seyfarth Shaw LLP on

Several recent Supreme Court decisions have upended causation standards in the statutory alphabet soup of federal remedial rights. It is now clear that “but for” causation governs discrimination claims under the Age...more

Proskauer Rose LLP

California Employment Law Notes - July 2013

Proskauer Rose LLP on

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

BakerHostetler

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

BakerHostetler on

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

Sherman & Howard L.L.C.

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

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP

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

Stinson LLP

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

Stinson LLP on

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

Orrick - Employment Law and Litigation

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

Pierce Atwood LLP

Employers Prevail In Two U.S. Supreme Court Decisions

Pierce Atwood LLP on

The U.S. Supreme Court issued two closely watched decisions Monday affecting Title VII cases....more

FordHarrison

Legal Alert: Supreme Court Sets Heightened Standard For Proving Retaliation Claims

FordHarrison on

On June 24, 2013, the United States Supreme Court heightened the burden of proof for employees bringing retaliation claims under Title VII by holding that employees have to prove that the employer's desire to retaliate was...more

33 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 2

"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:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide