by Megan Anderson, Esq., Gray Plant Mooty, Minneapolis
In June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar that, to win a retaliation lawsuit, an employee must show the employer’s intent to retaliate against the employee for exercising Title VII anti-discrimination rights was the “but for” cause of the challenged action, not just a motivating factor.
In essence, the Nassar ruling means that a Title VII retaliation claim fails if the employer had other legitimate, nonretaliatory reasons for acting, even if retaliation may have played a role.
The Nassar ruling should make it easier for employers to defeat retaliation claims, and may result in fewer claims being filed. That’s obviously good news for employers.
However, as important a victory as the Nassar ruling was, it’s important to recognize that the retaliation war is ongoing.
Retaliation claims rising
Retaliation claims have b...(register to read more)
- How to Fire an Employee the Legal Way: 6 Termination Guidelines
- Unpaid intern may be an employee under Pennsylvania Human Relations Act
- EEOC issues fresh guidance on anti-retaliation compliance
- Flurry of year-end regulations affect New York wage-and-hour law
- Hostile e-mail was grounds for firing, federal court finds