Retaliation Under Title VII must be Proven Under Traditional “But For” Causation Doctrine
1 min read
Jul 10, 2013
Where a person seeks compensation for injury resulting from wrongful conduct, there must be a demonstrated connection between the wrong alleged and the injury — i.e., causation. The default rule, developed in connection with tort law, is that the plaintiff must show “the harm would not have occurred” in the absence of the wrongful conduct. This is also known as the “but for” causation standard.
However, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which protects employees from work place discrimination, provides a different standard for proving causation in cases involving discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin (also called “status-based discrimination”). Under the specific language of the statute, the plaintiff need only prove that status-based discrimination was “a motivating factor” in the employer’s conduct.
In University of Texas Southern Western Medical Center v. Nassar, the United States Supreme Court dealt with the question of whether this lessened causation standard also applies to claims of unlawful employer retaliation under Title VII.
In a 5-4 decision (with the liberal block of the Court dissenting), the Court ruled that the ordinary standard for causation applies to retaliation claims under Title VII. In other words, the “but for” causation standard (not the more lenient “motivating factor” standard) applies, effectively making it harder for an employee to prove causation in a retaliation case then in a status-based discrimination case.
The Court’s reasoning was based on the history of the passage of Title VII and its revisions and the structure of the statute (with status-based discrimination and retaliation sections being placed in different parts of the statute). The Court also noted the increasing frequency of retaliation claims, and the abuses to which retaliation claims could be subjected if a more lenient standard was applied.
If you would like to discuss the Nassar case, or the provisions of Title VII in general, please contact the author.
Featured Insights

Hinshaw Alert
Jun 1, 2026
SCOTUS Clears Road to Negligent Hiring, Selection Against Freight Brokers

Insights for Employers Alert
May 29, 2026
USCIS Policy Update: New Adjustment of Status Guidance Impacting Employers and Individuals

Press Release
May 28, 2026
Hinshaw Adds Former General Counsel as a Commercial Transactions Partner in Miami

Event
May 27-29, 2026
Steve Puiszis Moderates Discussion on Today's Law Firm Risk Environment

Press Release
May 26, 2026
L.J. Rotman Recognized in the Inaugural Minnesota Lawyer Minnesota Legal 250

Privacy, Cyber & AI Decoded Alert
May 21, 2026
Deploying AI Companions in Elder Care: A Privacy Compliance Playbook

Press Release
May 20, 2026
Hinshaw Releases America 250 Book Exploring Insurance's Role in Building the United States

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
May 19, 2026
OCC's Final Escrow-Interest Preemption Rules Bolster the Second Circuit’s Cantero Decision

Webinar
May 19, 2026
Scott Seaman Speaks on Making Decisions in Difficult Risk Environments



