On the same day it issued its decision in Vance, the Supreme Court also issued a decision settling the issue of what standard of proof applies to Title VII retaliation claims. In University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, the Court held that a plaintiff who files suit claiming an employer retaliated against him must show that the employer’s intent to retaliate was the “but-for” cause of the resultant adverse action the employee suffered — e.g. termination, failure to promote, or the like. In so holding, the Court rejected the more permissive standard applied to discrimination cases brought pursuant to Title VII. A plaintiff alleging a discrimination claim pursuant to Title VII need only show that the employer’s intent to discriminate was a “motivating factor” in the adverse action the employee suffers. By contrast, Nassar says that a retaliation claim will be subject to a higher standard of proof. In so finding, the Court rejected the notion that retaliation itself may be a form of discrimination. The standard adopted in Nassar for retaliation claims is the same “but-for” standard the Court has adopted and now applies to age discrimination claims under the ADEA.
Udall Law Firm (Tucson)
4801 E. Broadway Boulevard, Suite 400
Tucson, AZ 85711
Udall Law Firm (Phoenix)
2198 E. Camelback Road, Suite 375
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Toll Free: 1.800.527.4431
Read More Articles?