Proof of workplace retaliation
University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar
In brief
The Court required workers to show the employer would not have acted without retaliation, wiped out the Fifth Circuit’s ruling, and sent Nassar’s case back.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 5-4 · June 24, 2013 · Opinion by Justice Kennedy
- What it’s about
- Dr. Naiel Nassar claimed that the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center retaliated against him after he complained about discrimination.
- Who it affects
- Workers bringing Title VII retaliation claims must show the employer would not have taken the challenged action without the retaliation.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Supreme Court ruled that a worker bringing a Title VII retaliation claim must prove the employer would not have taken the action if not for retaliation, and wiped out the Fifth Circuit’s judgment and sent the case back to that court (vacated and remanded).
Title VII is the federal law that bars workplace discrimination and retaliation against workers who report it.
Question presented
Does the retaliation provision of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 require a plaintiff to prove that an employer would not have taken an action but for the existence of an improper motive, or does the provision require only proof that the employer had mixed motives for taking an action?
What the Court decided
Holding
Title VII retaliation claims must be proved according to traditional principles of but-for causation, not the lessened causation test stated in §2000e–2(m). 674 F. 3d 448, vacated and remanded.
- Result
- Vacated
The Court's reasoning
The Court said workers must use the usual cause-and-effect test: prove the employer would not have taken the action without retaliation. It rejected a less demanding test used for some other Title VII claims.
The vote
From the opinions
“Title VII itself does not use that term.”
What's next
The Fifth Circuit must reconsider Nassar’s case using the rule that the employer would not have taken the action without retaliation.
Documents
Opinions
Audio
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Impact Analysis
AI analysis generated: Opinion Summary
Show 5 moreShow fewer
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Audio Recording added: Oral Arguments - Nassar
Opinion added: Nassar
More questions
- Did the Court decide whether the university retaliated against Nassar?
- No. It set the proof rule and sent the case back; it did not decide whether the university retaliated.
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.