join our network! affiliate login  
Custom Search
GET OUR FREE EMAIL NEWSLETTERS!
Daily and Weekly Editions • Articles • Alerts • Expert Advice • Learn More
University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, (S.Ct. 6.24.13)

Articles Discussing Case:

Supreme Court Tightens Standard In Retaliation Cases

Fisher Phillips • September 03, 2013
As the U.S. Supreme Court ended its most recent term with a number of cases that will have broad societal implications, one employment law case decided by the Court seems to have taken somewhat of a back seat, despite the significant effect it will have on retaliation claims arising out of workplace discrimination complaints.

U.S. Supreme Court Ruling on Retaliation Claims Imposes “But For” Burden of Proof Standard

Goldberg Segalla LLP • July 03, 2013
People often say it’s not the crime that will do you in, it’s the cover-up. In some ways, that sentiment has been applicable to retaliation claims for alleged discrimination in the workplace. At least until this past Monday, when the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision in University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, Slip Op., No. 12-484 (U.S. Sup. Ct., June 24, 2013).

Supreme Court Improves Employers' Ability To Defend Against Unlawful Discrimination Claims

Phelps Dunbar LLP • June 28, 2013
On June 24, 2013, the United States Supreme Court rendered two decisions that make it easier for employers to defend Title VII harassment and retaliation cases, and perhaps in other discrimination cases beyond Title VII. The cases are Vance v. Ball State University and University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar.

Legal Alert: Supreme Court Sets Heightened Standard for Proving Retaliation Claims

FordHarrison LLP • June 27, 2013
Executive Summary: On June 24, 2013, the United States Supreme Court heightened the burden of proof for employees bringing retaliation claims under Title VII by holding that employees have to prove that the employer's desire to retaliate was the "but-for" cause for the employer's adverse employment action.

Supreme Court Requires “But-For” Causation in Title VII Retaliation Claims

Franczek Radelet P.C • June 26, 2013
In 2009, the Supreme Court made it more difficult to prevail on a claim under the federal age discrimination statute by holding that a plaintiff must show that the protected activity was the “but for” cause of the adverse employment decision, rather than just one “motivating factor.” Yesterday, in a significant victory for employers, the Court broadened that holding to retaliation claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Univ. of Texas Sw. Med. Cent. v. Nassar.

Supreme Court Limits Mixed-Motive Standard

Fisher Phillips • June 25, 2013
On June 24, 2013, in a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified that an employee alleging unlawful retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 must prove that a retaliatory motive was the “but-for” cause of an adverse employment action. In other words, the employee must show that the employer would not have taken the adverse employment action but for an improper motive. The decision, which will make it more difficult for employees to prevail on retaliation claims, is a significant victory for employers. University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar.

"But For" Not "Motivating Factor" is Standard for Title VII Retaliation

Ogletree Deakins • June 25, 2013
Maybe it is because I practice in the 5th Circuit, but today's other major Supreme Court decision for the employment law world, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, (S.Ct. 6.24.13) is by far the more important case. The Court holds that retaliation under Title VII will use a "but for" not "motivating factor" standard.