University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar

University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar

Argued April 24, 2013
Decided June 24, 2013
Full case name University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar
Citations

570 U.S. ___ (more)

Prior history United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Holding
A plaintiff establishes a violation of the retaliation provision of Title VII if the plaintiff proves that the defendant would not have made the adverse employment action but for the defendant's retaliatory motive.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John G. Roberts
Case opinions
Majority Kennedy, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito
Dissent Ginsburg, joined by Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan
Laws applied
Title VII

University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, 570 U.S. ___ (2013), was a Supreme Court of the United States case involving the standard of proof required for a retaliation claim under Title VII.[1] The Court held that while Title VII applies a mixed motive discrimination framework to claims of discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin (see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2), that framework did not apply to claims of retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3. The Court reasoned that based on its decision in Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. and on common law principles of tort law, the plaintiff was required to show that a retaliatory motive was the "but for" cause of the adverse employment action.

Background

From 1995 to 1998 and 2001 to 2006, Dr. Naiel Nassar, an Egyptian-born Muslim, was a faculty member of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, as well as a medical doctor at Parkland Memorial Hospital. Dr. Nassar contended that Dr. Beth Levine, one of his supervisors, had created a hostile work environment towards Dr. Nassar on account of his race. Dr. Nassar resigned from the University in 2006, citing Dr. Levine's discriminatory behavior in his resignation letter. Prior to his resignation, Dr. Nassar had requested and received an offer to continue working at Parkland Hospital, but after receiving his resignation letter, the University instructed the Hospital to withdraw the offer.

Opinion of the Court

The Court determined that Title VII's mixed motive discrimination did not apply to retaliation claims, and therefore Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. was instructive. The Court opined that the placement of the mixed-motive test in the status-based discrimination section and not the retaliation section indicated Congress' intent to exclude retaliation claims from that standard. The Court then turned to the text of the retaliation provision and found it similar to the ADEA provision addressed in Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc.[2]

See also

References

  1. ↑ http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-484_o759.pdf
  2. ↑ http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/08pdf/08-441.pdf
This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the 11/2/2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.