Advertisement

July 28, 2014

High Court to Decide Whether “but-for” Standard Applies to Retaliation Claims Under Title VII

The United States Supreme Court has added yet another interesting employment law issue to its docket, agreeing to take up the question of whether Title VII’s retaliation provision and similarly worded statutes require a plaintiff to prove “but-for” causation or instead require only proof that the employer had a mixed motive for the employment decision in question.

The Supreme Court granted a petition by the employer to hear its appeal in the case of University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, Docket No. 12-00484. The employer’s appeal comes after a trial and an appeal in the Fifth Circuit in which a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff on a retaliation claim was upheld.

In asking the Supreme Court to take the case, the employer argued that the appellate courts are divided on whether retaliation claims under Title VII or claims under other similarly worded employment statutes are subject to the but-for causation analysis from Gross v. FBL Financial Services, 557 U.S. 167 (2009) or the mixed-motive analysis from Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989). In particular, the employer noted that the appellate courts are split on whether the Supreme Court’s but-for holding in Gross, which was an age discrimination case,  is limited to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act or whether it applies to all other similarly worded employment statutes. The employer argued that the Fifth Circuit’s decision conflicts with other appellate rulings, including several in the Seventh Circuit (which covers Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin).

In the underlying case, a Texas jury found in favor of the plaintiff, a medical school professor, on his claims of constructive discharge and retaliation and awarded approximately $3.5 million in damages. (The district court reduced that to about $735,000 plus attorneys’ fees). On appeal, the Fifth Circuit reversed on the constructive discharge claim but upheld the retaliation verdict.

We will be watching the docket for briefs and oral argument on this important issue for employers and employment law practitioners.

© 2014 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

About the Author

Jennifer Cerven, Labor and Employment Attorney, Barnes Thornburg Law firm
Staff Attorney

Jennifer Cerven is a staff attorney in the Chicago, Illinois office of Barnes & Thornburg LLP, where she is a member of the Labor and Employment Law Department.

312-214-8323

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.