Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Supreme Court Decision Will Help Employers Defend Title VII Retaliation Claims
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Date: July 30, 2013
Key Contacts
Back
At the end of its term, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a highly anticipated employment law decision regarding retaliation claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The ruling is good news for employees, particularly given the recent spike in these types of claims.
In University of Texas Southwester Medical Center v. Nassar, the Court was asked to define the proper standard of causation for Title VII retaliation claims. As the Court highlighted, Title VII provides for two types of employment claims. The first is what the Court terms “status-based discrimination,” which includes prohibitions against employer discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in the workplace. The second is employer retaliation on account of an employee’s having opposed, complained of, or sought remedies for, unlawful workplace discrimination.
In 1991, Congress amended Title VII to lower the standard of proof for employees pursuing discrimination claims. Under the new standard, claimants only needed to show that the motive to discriminate was one of the employer’s motives, even if the employer also had other, lawful motives that were causative in the employer’s decision. Because Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision appears in a different section of the statute, questions arose regarding whether the new, less burdensome legal standard applied.
In resolving this question, the majority of the Supreme Court held that Title VII retaliation claims must be proved according to traditional principles of but-for causation (i.e., that an employer would not have taken an adverse employment action but for an improper motive). The Court rejected the lower standard of proof favored by employees and adopted by some federal courts. It would have required employees only to prove that the employer had a mixed motive (i.e., that an improper motive was one of multiple reasons for the employment action).
The decision will make it more difficult to prove retaliation claims.
If you have any questions about this case or would like to discuss the legal issues involved, please contact me, Christine Vanek, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work.
- Practices: Labor & Employment
- Locations: Red Bank, NJ, Little Falls, NJ, New York City
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Related Posts
See all
The Due Diligence Process for NY Condominiums and Cooperatives
While the New York City real estate market can be extremely competitive, moving too quickly often backfires. Before purchasing a condominium or cooperative in New York City, it is important to do you homework. Purchasing property in NYC can involve a dizzying number of legal issues. These include condo and co-op rules, rent restrictions, and […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Smart Contract Legal Issues: Drafting Agreements for Blockchain
Smart contracts feature a unique blend of legal agreement and technical code. This innovation has the potential to reshape how business is conducted. At the same time, smart contract legal issues around enforceability, jurisdiction, identity, and compliance are common. The legal framework for these self-executing agreements is still evolving. What Are Smart Contracts? Smart contracts, […]
Author: Bryce S. Robins
Are Stay Interviews the Key to Retaining Top Talent?
Retaining top talent continues to be one of the greatest challenges facing employers today. Even in an employer’s market, the loss of a key employee can disrupt operations and result in significant costs. While compensation plays a role, long-term retention often depends on workplace culture, communication, and employee engagement. One increasingly popular strategy for improving […]
Author: Angela A. Turiano
Why Secured Transactions Are Important
Secured transactions form the backbone of a wide range of business dealings, including business loans, mortgages, and inventory financing. Because the stakes are often high and relatively minor oversights can have drastic consequences, lenders and borrowers should thoroughly understand how to form an enforceable security agreement that protects their legal rights. What Is a Secured […]
Author: Dan Brecher
Don’t Cash a “Paid in Full” Check Without Understanding the Legal Implications
Cashing a check marked “paid in full” can be a risky endeavor, particularly if you don’t fully understanding the legal implications. If you are owed more than the amount of the check you accept and deposit, you may waive your right to collect the full disputed amount. That is why you should consider either rejecting […]
Author: Dan Brecher
Changes to Qualified Small Business Stock Will Benefit Startup Founders and Investors
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act of 2025 (OBBBA) significantly impacts federal taxes, credits, and deductions. A key change relating to Qualified Small Business Stock (QSBS) allows greater tax-free gains for investments in startups and other qualifying small businesses. Company founders and other investors should understand how the enhanced tax strategy works or risk missing […]
Author: Dan Brecher
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.