The issue before the court in this case was whether this standard of proof was the proper standard to be used in determining retaliation or was the appropriate standard the “motivating factor” standard. Or more specifically, whether a plaintiff claiming retaliation can win a claim based on discrimination being a “motivating factor” for retaliation or must the plaintiff show that the discrimination was the reason for the retaliation. In addressing this issue, the United States Supreme Court determined that the standard of proof used to allege a claim for retaliation under Title VII must be the but for test which is a higher standard of proof. The use of the “motivating factor” standard of proof by the lower courts was inappropriate. Under the “but for” standard, a plaintiff must show that unlawful retaliation would not have occurred in the absence of the alleged wrongful act of the employer.
The law the Supreme Court relied upon in making its ruling is Title VII section 2000e-3(a), which is the retaliation provision of the Civil Rights Act. It provides that employers may not discriminate against employees due to the employee’s opposition to the employers “unlawful employment practice” or due the employee’s allegation, testimony, assistance or participation in an employment discrimination claim. The court has held that a claim under this section requires proof that retaliation was the but-for cause of the action taken by the employer. The issue before the court in this case was whether this standard of proof was the proper standard to be used in determining retaliation or was the appropriate standard the “motivating factor” standard. The appeals court made its ruling for both the claim of discrimination and retaliation on the “motivating factor” standard. However, the Supreme Court held in this case that it is the “but for” standard that is appropriate for the retaliation claim.
The ruling by the court on the type of standard required for retaliation cases has a significant impact on employees who seek to claim retaliation. The Court stated that this higher standard of proof is required to prevent frivolous claims. Based on the holding in this case, plaintiffs will have a more difficult time proving retaliation. This may give more room for employers to retaliate without a finding of inappropriate action against them by the courts. The dissent made a strong opposition to the holding in this case, and I agree with them. The dissent alleges that claims of discrimination and claims of retaliation are conjoined. Congress intended this relationship and that by separating the standards of proof for each claim, the Supreme Court has merely given aid to employers to retaliate and lessens the ability of employees to file warranted retaliation claims.
An evaluation of this case and the precedent set previously in retaliation cases, it appears that the Supreme Court made an inappropriate ruling. It disregards, not only previously established cases, but also Congressional intent. More troubling however, is the fact that this case makes it much more difficult for valid retaliation claims to be won in court by harmed employees.
Works Cited
Grossman, J. L., & Blake, D. L. (2013, July 9). Revenge: The Supreme Cour Narrows Protection Against Workplace Retaliation in University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar. Retrieved from Justia Verdict: https://verdict.justia.com/2013/07/09/revenge-the-supreme-court-narrows-protection-against-workplace-retaliation-in-university-of-texas-southwestern-medical-center-v-nassar
Russell, K. (2013, June 24). Court rules for employers in two employment discrimination cases. Retrieved from SCOTUS blog: http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/06/court-rules-for-employers-in-two-employment-discrimination-cases/
