News & Analysis as of

Title VII › But For Causation

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act is a United States federal law enacted in 1964 and aimed at preventing discrimination in the workplace on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin, and religion. Title VII... more +
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act is a United States federal law enacted in 1964 and aimed at preventing discrimination in the workplace on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin, and religion. Title VII has been subsequently extended to discrimination on the basis of pregnancy and sexual stereotypes and to prohibit sexual harassment. Title VII applies to all employers with fifteen or more employees including private employers, state and local governments, and educational institutions.  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.

Seventh Circuit Upholds High Bar For Plaintiffs Filing Retaliation Claims

Jackson Lewis P.C. on

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently reaffirmed employers’ rights under Title VII to make merit-based hiring decisions, even when it means rejecting a candidate who recently raised a meritorious claim of...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

Proskauer - Law and the Workplace

Significant Workplace Changes in Store under the Biden Administration

Proskauer - Law and the Workplace on

From pay equity to an increased minimum wage, pro-worker and pro-union labor policies, and additional anti-discrimination protections, President-elect Biden has touted support for numerous legislative and regulatory proposals...more

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

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

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP

Ninth Circuit Adopts But-For Causation Standard in ADA Discrimination Claims

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP on

Rejecting the motivating factor causation standard, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit declared that the “but-for” standard of causation applies to Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) discrimination claims....more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Sex + Discrimination = Liability, Says First Circuit

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP on

In Franchina v. City of Providence, 2018 WL 550511, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 1919 (1st Cir., Jan. 25, 2018), the First Circuit offered no sympathy to the City in its appeal of a jury award that found the City’s fire department...more

Seyfarth Shaw LLP

School Scores Summary Judgment Win In ADEA Collective Action

Seyfarth Shaw LLP on

Synopsis: In an ADEA collective action alleging that a community college discriminated on the basis of age when it announced it would no longer employ any person receiving an annuity from the State Universities Retirement...more

Fisher Phillips

Third Circuit Confirms “But-For” Standard for Retaliation Claims Under the False Claims Act

Fisher Phillips on

Last month, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals held that an employee’s protected activity must be the “but for” cause of an adverse action to support a claim for retaliation under the False Claims Act (“FCA”). The Court...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

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

Jackson Lewis P.C.

Employee’s Retaliation and Hostile Work Environment Claims Based on a Rumor Spread in the Workplace Survives Motion for Summary...

Jackson Lewis P.C. on

In Baez v. Anne Fontaine USA, Inc., the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied an employer’s motion for summary judgment to dismiss a terminated employee’s retaliation claims under Title...more

61 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 3
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