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

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

Event
May 7, 2026 - May 9, 2026
Anshuman Vaidya Presents on IRS Criminal Tax Enforcement Priorities at the ABA Tax Meeting

Webinar
Apr 29, 2026
When a Cyber Breach Hits: Cybersecurity, Privacy, and Compliance

Event
Apr 23, 2026
Driving Ahead: Insights from Industry Leaders Auto Finance Seminar

Lawyers for the Profession® Alert
Apr 21, 2026
When Does a Client’s Duty to Investigate Begin? Lessons from a Time-Barred Malpractice Case

Press Release
Apr 20, 2026
Tom Kuzmanovic Selected for BizTimes Milwaukee 2026 Notable Leaders in Law

Press Release
Apr 17, 2026
André Sesler Elected to the Board of Trustees of the University of Florida Law Center Association

Hinshaw Alert
Apr 17, 2026
Q&A: How to Submit Your IEEPA Refund Claim as CAPE Portal Launches April 20, 2026

In The News
Apr 14, 2026
Bloomberg Law Recaps Panels Presented at Hinshaw's 25th Anniversary LMRM Conference

In The News
Apr 14, 2026
Michael Dowell Discusses the Uncertain Impact of Growing Medicare Advantage Scrutiny


