On June 24, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Title VII retaliation claims require employees to demonstrate an employer would not have taken an adverse employment action against them "but for" unlawful retaliation, rather than the lesser "mixed-motive" standard. In University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, the employee, a medical doctor and faculty member at the university hospital, complained about alleged harassment based on his race and national origin. The employee later resigned from his dual position thinking he would be reinstated as a physician. When the university did not offer him reinstatement, the employee sued for unlawful retaliation under Title VII. The employee obtained a favorable jury verdict, which was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The central question on review before the Supreme Court was whether the Fifth Circuit erred in applying a mixed-motive causation analysis to the Title VII retaliation claim. The mixed-motive analysis only requires proof that an employer had mixed motives for taking an employment action that included an unlawful motive, as opposed to the stricter but-for causation standard, which requires proof the alleged adverse employment action occurred because of an unlawful motive.
The Supreme Court rendered a five-justice majority decision that the stricter but-for causation standard should apply to Title VII retaliation claims. This requires proof the "unlawful retaliation would not have occurred in the absence of the alleged wrongful action or actions of the employer," Justice Kennedy wrote for the majority. The Court reasoned that when Congress made numerous amendments to Title VII in 1991, it did not specifically include reference to the mixed-motive standard of proof for retaliation claims. The Court also noted the significant rise in retaliation claims, which nearly doubled at the EEOC over the past 15 years. The Court expressed concern that lowering the causation standard could increase the filing of frivolous retaliation claims.
The dissenting justices disagreed, and Justice Ginsburg commented, "[T]he Court appears driven by a zeal to reduce the number of retaliation claims filed against employers." The dissent also indicated that this decision, along with the recent decision of Vance v. Ball State, which limited the definition of "supervisor" in Title VII cases, should cause Congress to act with new legislation.
Although the Nassar decision establishes a more favorable legal standard for employers in defending retaliation claims, employers still must proceed cautiously before taking any adverse action against an employee who has engaged in protected activity. Retaliation claims arising from such circumstances continue to proliferate and can be time-consuming, expensive and challenging to defend.
Day Pitney Employment Attorneys Lindsey A. Viscomi, Daniel L. Schwartz and Glenn W. Dowd authored the article, "Connecticut Expands Employment Anti-Discrimination Protections," for CT Lawyer.
Day Pitney Alert "FTC Takes Historic Action Against The Enforcement of Non-Compete Agreements," was featured in the Inside Radio article, "Business Begins Angling To Scale Back FTC's Proposed Limits on Noncompete Agreements."
Chair of Day Pitney's Employment and Labor Practice Heather Weine Brochin was featured in the U.S. News & World Report article, "Should You Work 2 Remote Jobs at Once?"
Day Pitney Employment and Labor Partner Daniel Schwartz was featured in Law360 Employment Authority's article, "4 Vacation Time Tips For Employers As Year Winds Down."
Chair of Day Pitney's Employment and Labor Practice Heather Brochin and Senior Associate Jim Leva authored an article titled, "New Jersey Takes Aim at Restrictive Covenants," for the New Jersey Law Journal's Employment Law Special Section.
Rod Rodriguez and Glenn Dowd authored an article on "Minimizing litigation risk on compensation disclosure" in the July 1 edition of The Hartford Business Journal.
Day Pitney Employment and Labor Partner Rachel Gonzalez was featured in the New Jersey Law Journal’s After Hours column for being a recipient of the Executive Women of New Jersey Salute to the Policy Makers Award.
Day Pitney Employment and Labor Partner Rachel Gonzalez was featured in the Diverse Lawyers Network newsletter for being a recipient of the Executive Women of New Jersey Salute to the Policy Makers Award.
Day Pitney Press Release
Day Pitney Attorneys Daniel Schwartz, Michael Lane and Lindsey Viscomi authored the article, "Don't Be Late Paying Terminated Employees in Massachusetts," for Law360 Employment Authority.
Copyright © 2023 Day Pitney LLP, all rights reserved.