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

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

Healthcare Alert
Mar 26, 2026
Are You Beyond the Red Line? Mastering Your FQHC’s Scope of Project to Avoid Noncompliance

Webinar
Mar 24, 2026
David Alfini on How Regulatory Citations Become Senior Living Risk

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
Mar 18, 2026
How Should Entities Prepare for California’s New DFAL Licensing Requirement?

Webinar
Mar 17, 2026
Legal Insights on Medical Aid in Dying from Katie Anderson and Adam Guetzow

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
Mar 13, 2026
DOJ Settlement with Car Retailer Highlights SCRA Repossession Risks

Privacy, Cyber & AI Decoded Alert
Mar 11, 2026
Compliance Considerations for GDPR Consent in Biotech Clinical Research




![[VIDEO] Lucy Wang Featured in Business Interview TV Series](/a/web/28aUdvEJH2Txwy8MGsu35J/bo3TFX/featured-in-the-business-insurance-business-interview-series-insights.jpg)
