Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC, LLCScarinci Hollenbeck, LLC, LLC

Firm 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.

No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC, LLC

Related Posts

See all
New York NDA Requirements for Businesses post image

New York NDA Requirements for Businesses

Non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) remain a critical tool for protecting sensitive business information. However, New York NDA requirements have evolved, and businesses must ensure these agreements are carefully drafted to remain enforceable. In a competitive market like New York City, NDAs are commonly used to protect proprietary information, client relationships, and strategic plans. At the same […]

Author: Dan Brecher

Link to post with title - "New York NDA Requirements for Businesses"
New Jersey Will Contest Grounds Explained post image

New Jersey Will Contest Grounds Explained

How Courts Evaluate Testamentary Capacity and Undue Influence Will contests in New Jersey are difficult to win, given the strong presumption that a properly executed will reflects the testator’s intent. However, challenges based on lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence remain common, particularly where there are concerns about mental capacity or the involvement of […]

Author: Marc J. Comer

Link to post with title - "New Jersey Will Contest Grounds Explained"
Legal Issues Before Bringing on Investors post image

Legal Issues Before Bringing on Investors

Bringing on outside investors can provide the capital and strategic support a business needs to grow. However, raising capital also introduces important legal, financial, and operational considerations. Before bringing on investors, businesses should address key legal issues to reduce risk, streamline investor due diligence, and position the company for long-term success. Early preparation signals that […]

Author: Dan Brecher

Link to post with title - "Legal Issues Before Bringing on Investors"
SECURE 2.0 RMD Planning Strategies post image

SECURE 2.0 RMD Planning Strategies

How the Updated Law Shapes Retirement and Estate Planning The SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022 materially reshapes the required minimum distribution (RMD) landscape, extending tax deferral opportunities while accelerating distribution requirements for many beneficiaries. For high-net-worth individuals and families, these changes are not merely technical. They require a reassessment of retirement income strategies, beneficiary planning, […]

Author: Marc J. Comer

Link to post with title - "SECURE 2.0 RMD Planning Strategies"
Buying Commercial Property in New Jersey: Legal Guide for Small Businesses post image

Buying Commercial Property in New Jersey: Legal Guide for Small Businesses

Small businesses considering buying commercial property in New Jersey must evaluate a range of legal, financial, and operational factors. While ownership can offer long-term value and control, it also introduces significant risks if not properly structured. This guide outlines key considerations to help New Jersey business owners make informed decisions, minimize legal exposure, and successfully […]

Author: Robert L. Baker, Jr.

Link to post with title - "Buying Commercial Property in New Jersey: Legal Guide for Small Businesses"
The SEC’s Latest Guidance on Applying Federal Securities Laws to Tokenized Securities post image

The SEC’s Latest Guidance on Applying Federal Securities Laws to Tokenized Securities

On January 28, 2026, staff of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s Divisions of Corporation Finance, Investment Management, and Trading and Markets issued a joint statement clarifying how existing federal securities laws apply to tokenized securities. The SEC’s “Statement on Tokenized Securities” does not establish new law, but it does provide greater clarity on the […]

Author: Dan Brecher

Link to post with title - "The SEC’s Latest Guidance on Applying Federal Securities Laws to Tokenized Securities"

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.

Let`s get in touch!

* The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form. By providing a telephone number and submitting this form you are consenting to be contacted by SMS text message. Message & data rates may apply. Message frequency may vary. You can reply STOP to opt-out of further messaging.

Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!