Term: 2012
Docket: 12-484
University Of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Petitioner v. Naiel Nassar
- Pro
12-484 UNIV. OF TEXAS SOUTHWESTERN MED. CENTR. V. NASSAR DECISION BELOW: 674 F.3d 448 CERT. GRANTED 1/18/2013 QUESTION PRESENTED: In Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228, 258, 268-69 (1989), a plurality of this Court held that the discrimination provision of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a), requires a plaintiff to prove only that discrimination was "a motivating factor" for an adverse employment action. In contrast, Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., 557 U.S. 167, 179-80 (2009), held that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), Pub. L. 90-202, 81 Stat. 602, requires proof that age was "the but-for cause" of an adverse employment action, such that a defendant is not liable if it would have taken the same action for other, non-discriminatory reasons. The courts of appeals have since divided 3- 2 on whether Gross or Price Waterhouse establishes the general rule for other federal employment statutes, such as Title VII’s retaliation provision, that do not specifically authorize mixed-motive claims. The question presented is: Whether Title VII's retaliation provision and similarly worded statutes require a plaintiff to prove but-for causation (i.e., that an employer would not have taken an adverse employment action but for an improper motive), or instead require only proof that the employer had a mixed motive (i.e., that an improper motive was one of multiple reasons for the employment action). LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 11-10338
In the case of University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Naiel Nassar, 2012, Dr. Naiel Nassar claimed that he was constructively discharged from his position due to a hostile work environment created by racial and religious discrimination. After resigning, he sought employment at another clinic affiliated with the university but was denied after one of his previous supervisors opposed it. He then sued for retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act which prohibits employer retaliation against employees who allege discrimination. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the University in a 5-4 decision stating that an employee must prove that retaliation would not have occurred "but-for" their complaint about discrimination - meaning they must show direct causation between their complaint and retaliatory action taken by an employer rather than simply showing it as one possible motivating factor among others.
In the dissenting opinion for University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, 2012, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued that the majority's decision to require a higher standard of proof in retaliation cases under Title VII was misguided and inconsistent with precedent. She contended that this ruling would make it more difficult for employees to prove they were retaliated against after reporting discrimination or harassment at work. The justice believed there should be no distinction between status-based discrimination (e.g., race, religion) and retaliation claims when determining causation; both should require only a showing that an unlawful motive was one among others behind an adverse employment action. In her view, Congress intended Title VII to cover both types of claims equally and robustly protect workers from workplace bias.
