Supreme Court Wades Into Retaliation Cases
An especially confusing area of labor law concerns cases based on retaliatory action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. These cases exist when an employee believes that illegal and retributive action was taken by an employer after the employee raised legitimate concerns, often involving discrimination, at work. The Supreme Court recently addressed a retaliatory firing case and laid out exactly what plaintiffs will need to prove if they want to be successful. Unfortunately, the case shifted the burden of proof more heavily on the shoulders of the employee, making it harder than ever to launch such claims
The case that dealt with the issue of retaliation was University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar. In the case, the Supreme Court ruled that employees must prove that a superior (or decision-maker) had retaliatory animus that made a difference in the employment decision. This means it is not enough in such a case for the plaintiff to show that retaliation was merely a motivating factor, it instead needs to be the sole basis for the retaliation.
The roots of the recent Nassar case go back several decades and likely start with a 1991 amendment to Title VII. One change that was made at the time said that if plaintiffs are able to demonstrate that discrimination was a motivating factor in an employment decision, then the employer’s only defense would be to show that it would have made the same decision regardless, even without the presence of the motivating factor.
However, the Supreme Court in Nassar would later decide that these changes made to Title VII in 1991 did not apply in this case. Instead, the Court decided that retaliation claims brought under Title VII must be proven under the older “but for” causation principles. The majority said that the 1991 amendments never applied to retaliation cases, only to status discrimination cases. As a result, plaintiffs must prove that the retaliation was not only a motivating factor, but that it was the sole reason for the action.
In Nassar, a University of Texas doctor sued the hospital claiming that he was the victim of retaliation, which led him to eventually leave his position. Specifically, the doctor said that his supervisor had a well-known bias against Middle Easterners and made his time at work unbearable. Nassar filed a complaint with the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) claiming that Levine had effectively fired him by discriminating against him based on his ethnicity. He also claimed that when he filed the complaint about this discrimination a new offer of employment was withdrawn, amounting to retaliation. The case eventually went to trial and the jury came down on his side, awarding him back pay and damages.
The case later made its way to the Fifth Circuit, which disagreed with the result regarding constructive discharge but affirmed the verdict regarding retaliation. The issue that was eventually appealed to the Supreme Court involved the proof required to make a retaliation claim.
The practical effect of the Nassar ruling is that employees will now have a much more difficult time suing employers for retaliation. Justice Ginsburg criticized the majority for being insensitive to the realities of working life, demonstrating that they only cared about making it easy for employers to win discrimination cases. In fact, Justice Ginsburg was so incensed with the ruling that she specifically called on Congress to overturn it.
Source: “Revenge: The Supreme Court Narrows Protection Against Workplace Retaliation in University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar,” by Joanna Grossman, published at Justia.com.
Source: “The Other UT Case: Supreme Court Rules in Favor of UT Southwestern Medical Center in Employment Dispute,” by Hannah Jeffrey, published at Chron.com.
See Our Related Blog Posts:
Supreme Court Clarifies That Verbal Complaints Can Trigger Retaliation Protection
Workplace Retaliation Protections Extended by Supreme Court
