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
Corporate Transactions: Best Practices for Successful Deals
Corporate transactions can have significant implications for a corporation and its stakeholders. For deals to be successful, companies must act strategically to maximize value and minimize risk. It is also important to fully understand the legal and financial ramifications of corporate transactions, both in the near and long term. Understanding Corporate Transactions The term “corporate […]
Author: Dan Brecher
How to Conduct a Fair and Legal Employee Termination in 2025
Ongoing economic uncertainty is forcing many companies to make tough decisions, which includes lowering staff levels. The legal landscape on both the state and federal level also continues to evolve, especially with significant changes to the priorities of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) under the Trump Administration. Terminating an employee is one of the […]
Author: Angela A. Turiano
Admin Dissolution for Annual Report: What You Need to Know
While filing annual reports may seem like a nuisance, failing to do so can have significant ramifications. These include fines, reputational harm, and interruption of your business operations. In basic terms, “admin dissolution for annual report” means that a company is dissolved by the government. This happens because it failed to submit its annual report […]
Author: Dan Brecher
What Is Antitrust Litigation Law?
Antitrust laws are designed to ensure that businesses compete fairly. There are three federal antitrust laws that businesses must navigate. These include the Sherman Act, the Federal Trade Commission Act, and the Clayton Act. States also have their own antitrust regimes. These may vary from federal regulations. Understanding antitrust litigation helps businesses navigate these complex […]
Author: Robert E. Levy
Dissolving Your Business: Essential Legal Steps to Protect Your Interests
If you’re considering closing your business, it’s crucial to understand that simply shutting your doors does not end your legal obligations. Unless you formally dissolve your business, it continues to exist in the eyes of the law—leaving you exposed to ongoing liabilities such as taxes, compliance violations, and potential lawsuits. Dissolving a business can seem […]
Author: Christopher D. Warren
The Role of Corporate Restructuring in Mergers & Acquisitions
Contrary to what many people think, corporate restructuring isn’t all doom and gloom. Revamping a company’s organizational structure, corporate hierarchy, or operations procedures can help keep your business competitive. This is particularly true during challenging times. Corporate restructuring plays a critical role in modern business strategy. It helps companies adapt quickly to market changes. Following […]
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.