News & Analysis as of September 22, 2024

But For Causation

+ Follow

The United States Supreme Court is the highest court of the United States and is charged with interpreting federal law, including the United States Constitution. The Court's docket is largely discretionary with only a limited number of cases granted review each term. The Court is comprised of one chief justice and eight associate justices, who are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate to hold lifetime positions. less -

EEOC Argues For Broader Causation Standard And Provides A Peek Into The EEOC’s Future Focus

Jackson Lewis P.C. on 2/26/2021

Legal precedent, including language from the U.S. Supreme Court, requires federal courts to take a broad view of the “but-for” causation standard for determining unlawful age discrimination in the workplace, Equal Employment...more

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

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP on 4/14/2020

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

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

Jackson Lewis P.C. on 3/27/2020

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

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

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP on 3/24/2020

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

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

Fenwick & West LLP on 7/24/2013

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

California Employment Law Notes - July 2013

Proskauer Rose LLP on 7/12/2013

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

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

BakerHostetler on 7/10/2013

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

Sherman & Howard L.L.C. on 7/10/2013

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

Employment Law -- Jul 03, 2013

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP on 7/5/2013

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

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

Proskauer - California Employment Law on 7/4/2013

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

Burr & Forman on 7/4/2013

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

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

Miller & Martin PLLC on 6/27/2013

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

Orrick - Employment Law and Litigation on 6/27/2013

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

Employers Prevail In Two U.S. Supreme Court Decisions

Pierce Atwood LLP on 6/27/2013

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

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

FordHarrison on 6/27/2013

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

Supreme Court Issues Important Affirmative Action And Employment Law Decisions

Proskauer - Government Contractor Compliance... on 6/27/2013

This week the Supreme Court issued three decisions that may significantly impact federal contractors and other employers: In Fisher v. University of Texas, No. 11-345 (U.S. June 24, 2013), the Supreme Court held that a...more

Supreme Court Adopts "But For" Causation Standard for Title VII Retaliation Claims

Proskauer Rose LLP on 6/26/2013

On June 24, 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that a plaintiff in a Title VII retaliation case must prove that the retaliation was the "but for" cause of the employer's adverse action. University of Texas S.W. Med. Ctr. v....more

"But for" causation must be used in Title VII retaliation cases, U.S. Supreme Court says

Miller Canfield on 6/25/2013

Title VII retaliation claims must be proven according to traditional “but for” causation principles, and not the less strict “motivating factor” standard applicable to other claims under the Statute, the U.S. Supreme Court...more

U.S. Supreme Court Issues Two Key Title VII Rulings

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart,... on 6/25/2013

On June 24, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States issued two highly-anticipated decisions. In Vance v. Ball State University, the justices considered whether the “supervisor” liability rule established by Supreme Court...more

Breaking: U.S. Supreme Court Holds “But For” Standard of Proof Applies; Big Implications for Retaliation Cases

Pullman & Comley, LLC on 6/25/2013

In another big win for employers today, the Supreme Court ruled that Title VII retaliation cases must be proved by a “but for” standard of proof, not a lower standard that had been used in various courts before....more

20 Results

View per page

Page: of 1

Supreme Court of the United States › Discrimination › But For Causation

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