News & Analysis as of

Supreme Court of the United States › Title VII › But For Causation

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... more +
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 -
Proskauer - Law and the Workplace

Eleventh Circuit Deepens Circuit Split Over Causation Standard for FMLA Retaliation Claims

Proskauer - Law and the Workplace on

On December 13, 2023, an Eleventh Circuit panel firmly established “but-for” causation as the Circuit’s causation standard for Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) retaliation claims. Courts across the nation have adopted...more

Jackson Lewis P.C.

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

Jackson Lewis P.C. on

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

Bodman

Workplace Law Lowdown | Sixth Circuit Will Not Expand Landmark Title VII Case of Bostock v Clayton County

Bodman on

Sixth Circuit Will Not Expand Landmark Title VII Case of Bostock v Clayton County to ADEA Claims - Employers in the Sixth Circuit Gain Predictability in the Test for Determining Claims Under the ADEA... ...more

Laner Muchin, Ltd.

The Supreme Court Affirms the “but-for” Causation Standard in Certain Discrimination Statutory Frameworks

Laner Muchin, Ltd. on

The Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County announced that employees are protected from discrimination based on their LGBTQ status. In reaching its historic holding, the Bostock Court engaged in an...more

Mintz - Employment Viewpoints

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

Mintz - Employment Viewpoints on

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

Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. on

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

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP on

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

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

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

Hinshaw & Culbertson - Employment Law... on

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

Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP on

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

Seyfarth Shaw LLP

Supreme Court Hears Landmark Cases On Title VII Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Discrimination

Seyfarth Shaw LLP on

Seyfarth Synopsis: On October 8th, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in a trio of cases that may decide whether Title VII prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. In much of the...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

Mintz - Employment Viewpoints

Third Circuit Rules that Employer-Friendly “But For” Causation Standard Applies to False Claims Act Retaliation Claims

Mintz - Employment Viewpoints on

In the case of DiFiore v. CSL Behring, LLC, the Third Circuit ruled for the first time that the more demanding “but for” causation standard applies to retaliation claims under the False Claims Act (“FCA”), rejecting the lower...more

Proskauer - Whistleblower Defense

EEOC Proposes Expansive Enforcement Guidance for Retaliation Claims

Proskauer - Whistleblower Defense on

For the first time in nearly 20 years, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has issued proposed enforcement guidance regarding retaliation claims. According to the EEOC, the revised guidance is necessary in light of...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

Spilman Thomas & Battle, PLLC

The Fourth Circuit Asks What For, Answers with But For: The Determination that a Landmark United States Supreme Court Decision...

Spilman Thomas & Battle, PLLC on

In 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States held that plaintiffs claiming retaliation under Title VII must prove that “but for” the retaliation they would not have been discharged. University of Texas Southwestern Medical...more

Spilman Thomas & Battle, PLLC

SuperVision Today - May 2015

Spilman Thomas & Battle, PLLC on

In This Issue: - Notes from the Chair and Executive Editor - The Fourth Circuit Asks What For, Answers with But For: The Determination that a Landmark United States Supreme Court Decision Does Not Change Employment...more

Baker Donelson

Are Title VII Retaliation Claims Dead Post-Nassar?

Baker Donelson on

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), saying: ...more

Fenwick & West LLP

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

Fenwick & West LLP on

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

Franczek P.C.

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

Franczek P.C. on

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

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

45 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 2
Next »

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