Unlawful Retaliation

The U.S. Supreme Court decided a case that will have a significant impact on retaliation cases under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Generally, an employee can sue an employer if the employer made a decision about the employee and the motivating factor was based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin under federal anti-discrimination law, even if motivating factors were also present. However, the language of the statue does not specify that the same language regarding the decision being only a “motivating factor” applies to cases of retaliation. A charge of unlawful retaliation can be brought “because [the employee] has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by [Title VII], or because [the employee] has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under [Title VII].”

Up until now, courts have been split as to whether to interpret the cause of retaliation in the same way the cause of a direct discrimination act.

The Case: University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar

In the case of University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, Nassar, a doctor of Middle Eastern heritage complained that he had experienced harassment due to his race. However, after he made the complaint he alleged that he suffered retaliation from his employer because of his complaints. He filed a retaliation lawsuit and won based on the jury instruction that the complaint he made only needed to be a motivating factor for suffering retaliation. The employer appealed the decision all the way to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court found that the law governing Title VII was originally based in the law of personal injury (Tort law). Tort law generally requires that a party prove that if it were not for the act of one party, the damage would not have resulted. As a result the court concluded that the lesser motivating factor requirement was incorrect. The court found that the correct standard is the higher, “but-for”, standard.

What The Ruling Means:

This finding essentially means that an employee must show that retaliation occurred because of an employee’s complaint. If there were other legitimate motivating factors for an employer’s actions after the complaint, the employer can escape liability for retaliation. This ruling will affect a wide variety of retaliation claims, including sex discrimination, race, and potentially even other discrimination law that is based on Title VII.

Employment discrimination law is a complex area that involves both employment and tort law. Having an experienced employment attorney on your side is vital to a successful discrimination lawsuit. The employment lawyers of Baker Law Group, LLP can help you if you have been wrongfully discriminated against. To schedule your free consultation call (858) 452-0093 today.

The Ninth Circuit recently released an opinion that upholds the burden of proof that an employer must claim in retaliatory discharge lawsuits. In Westendorf v. West Coast Contractors (9th Cir. 2013) an employee alleged that her male employee and supervisor made sexist remarks towards her. The remarks allegedly included suggestions that the employee wear a French maid’s uniform; and also involved obscene comments about tampons, women’s breasts and orgasms.

The employee made a formal complaint to her company’s president. The president allegedly reprimanded the supervisor but apparently did not seem to take the allegations seriously. The employee then alleged that the supervisor began making strange demands of her and harshly criticizing her for not following them. She complained a second time to the company president, who she says exclaimed that he was tired of listening to her and thought it was ”would be best if she got her personal items and left.” At which point she was escorted off the building. The company president alleges she had quit, but the employee maintained that she was wrongfully discharged for reporting sexual harassment.

Unfair Retaliation

The employee sued the company alleging it had created a hostile work environment and that it retaliated against her for speaking out about it. The district court dismissed the employee’s case on the grounds that she had been unable to prove either claim in the complaint. However, on appeal the Ninth Circuit found that the retaliation claim should not have been dismissed.

The Ninth Circuit held that because the company failed to provide any explanation for the alleged firing except that the employee quit, it could not get the case dismissed. The court highlighted that even if the company defended itself by saying that they fired the employee because of the employee’s failure to follow the strange directions that her supervisor gave her, that the reasoning would be pretextual because the employee had no record of insubordination before she complained about the harassment.

An Important Precedent

This case sets helpful precedent for employees in discrimination and harassment retaliation cases because it shows that when an employer fails to provide a reason for a termination or provides a frivolous reason, the employer cannot get the case dismissed early.

Wrongful termination because of sexual harassment and discrimination is illegal. To learn more about how to exercise your legal rights, contact the experienced California Employment Law Attorneys of Baker Law Group, LLP. Call (858) 452-0093 to schedule your free consultation.

Supreme Court Limits Employee Retaliation Cases

Ninth Circuit Says No Cause Termination Can Be Wrongful Termination