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
When to Settle and When to Fight: A Litigator's Framework
Every lawsuit comes with a cost, and knowing when to settle a lawsuit is one of the most consequential decisions a business owner will face. Experienced litigators understand how to minimize cost and obtain certainty for their clients. For many business owners, the decision is viewed almost entirely through a financial lens: What will it cost […]
Author: Sean M. Pena
A Whistleblower Just Filed a Complaint Against Your Company: Here's What to Do Now
Few situations create more uncertainty than learning that an employee has filed a whistleblower complaint. Questions arise immediately: Is the allegation legitimate? Should the employee be placed on leave? Do we need to notify our insurance carrier? Are we now prevented from disciplining the employee if there are unrelated ongoing work related issues? There is […]
Author: Sean M. Pena
Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors: An Alternative to Bankruptcy for Distressed Businesses
When a business reaches the point where it can no longer service its debts or otherwise resolve its liabilities, management is often faced with a difficult question: is a bankruptcy filing necessary or is there another way to perform an orderly liquidation or sale of the business assets? While Chapters 7 and 11 of the […]
Author: John D. Giampolo
Breaking Down New Jersey’s “Mansion” Tax: What Buyers and Sellers Need to Know
For many years, the New Jersey Mansion Tax has been a significant consideration in high-value real estate transactions. Recent legislative changes, however, have substantially altered how the tax operates, including who is responsible for paying it and the amount owed in certain transactions. Whether you are purchasing, selling, or investing in New Jersey real estate, […]
Author: George McGowan
Estate Planning for Digital Assets Under New Jersey Law
As our personal and financial lives increasingly move online, estate planning must evolve to address a new category of property: digital assets. From email accounts and social media profiles to cryptocurrency and cloud-stored business records, these assets often carry both financial and sentimental value. Yet, without proper planning, they can become inaccessible—or even lost—upon incapacity […]
Author: Marc J. Comer
The Role of Representation and Warranty Insurance in M&A Transactions
In today’s mergers and acquisitions market, representation and warranty (R&W) insurance has become a common feature of deal negotiations. Once used primarily in larger transactions, R&W insurance is now frequently incorporated into middle-market deals as buyers and sellers look for efficient ways to allocate risk and close deals. When structured properly, R&W insurance can help […]
Author: George McGowan
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.