Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar (Summary)

FEDERAL DISCRIMINATION/RETALIATION

Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, No. 12-484 (U.S. June 24, 2013)

The U.S. Supreme Court vacated a lower court judgment and remanded a case involving a physician who alleged Title VII retaliation claims, holding that such claims must be proven according to the principles of but-for causation rather than the lessened motivating-factor test used in Title VII discrimination claims.  The physician, who was of Middle Eastern descent, had been a faculty member at a university and claimed that the university-affiliated medical center rescinded a job offer as retaliation for his allegations that a supervisor had engaged in racially and religiously motivated harassment.  Those allegations had been detailed in the letter he submitted resigning his faculty position at the university.  The lower courts found in favor of the physician, concluding that the physician had met the motivating-factor test (as used in Title VII discrimination claims) which only required that individuals alleging a Title VII retaliation claim show that the retaliation was only one motivating factor for the adverse action.  The Supreme Court examined the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”) and case law and found there to be no difference between that body of law and Title VII claims, concluding that like the ADEA, Title VII retaliation claims require plaintiffs to establish a heightened degree of proof, showing that the retaliation was the “but-for” cause of the employment action.  The Court added that this standard would strike a balance in protecting the rights of both employees and employers, especially as the frequency of retaliation claims increases.