Skip to main content

Title VII

University Of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar

in
Oral argument: 
April 24, 2013
Court below: 
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Eradicating unlawful discrimination and retaliation in the workplace is one of core purposes of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Respondent Dr. Naiel Nassar, a former faculty member of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center (UTSW), alleges that his employer denied him a job in retaliation for a prior resignation letter alleging race discrimination in the workplace. Specifically, Nassar's resignation letter stated that his supervisor made derogatory comments about his Middle Eastern descent. Petitioner UTSW argues that Nassar needs to prove that retaliation was the sole motivating factor for the negative employment action. In contrast, Nassar argues that he need only show that retaliation was a motivating factor, but not necessarily the only one, for the negative employment action. A holding for UTSW may make it more difficult for victims of retaliation under Title VII to sue their employers, whereas a holding for Nassar may increase the costs borne by employers in defending against potentially meritless litigation.

Questions Presented: 

In Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228, 258, 268-69 (1989), a plurality of this Court held that the discrimination provision of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a), requires a plaintiff to prove only that discrimination was "a motivating factor" for an adverse employment action. In contrast, Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., 557 U.S. 167, 179-80 (2009), held that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), Pub. L. 90-202, 81 Stat. 602, requires proof that age was "the but-for cause" of an adverse employment action, such that a defendant is not liable if it would have taken the same action for other, non-discriminatory reasons. The courts of appeals have since divided 3-2 on whether Gross or Price Waterhouse establishes the general rule for other federal employment statutes, such as Title VII’s retaliation provision, that do not specifically authorize mixed-motive claims.

The question presented is:

Whether Title VII's retaliation provision and similarly worded statutes require a plaintiff to prove but-for causation (i.e., that an employer would not have taken an adverse employment action but for an improper motive), or instead require only proof that the employer had a mixed motive (i.e., that an improper motive was one of multiple reasons for the employment action).

top

Issue

Does Title VII of the Civil Rights Act require a plaintiff alleging retaliation to show that retaliation was the only reason for a negative employment action?

top

Written by: 
Dillon Horne
Matthew Soares
Edited by: 
Charlotte Davis
Additional Resources: 

top

Vance v. Ball State University

in
Oral argument: 
November 26, 2012
Court below: 
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Petitioner Maetta Vance contends that Saundra Davis, a catering specialist, had made Vance’s life at work contentious through physical acts and racial harassment.  Vance sued her employer, respondent Ball State University, for workplace harassment by a supervisor. To win a lawsuit for co-worker harassment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it is necessary to show that the employer is negligent in responding to complaints about harassment; however, to win a lawsuit for harassment by a supervisor, the employer does not have to be negligent because Title VII imputes the supervisor’s acts to the employer. Vance asserted that Davis was a supervisor although Ball State claimed Davis was not actually Vance’s supervisor. The District Court and Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit determined that Davis was not Vance’s supervisor because Davis did not have the power to direct the terms and conditions of Vance’s employment. Additionally, both courts found that Ball State had an adequate system in place for reporting and investigating claims of harassment under Title VII and thus the university could not be negligent. If Vance wins, the definition of supervisor under Title VII will expand to include more than just those who can hire, fire, demote, promote, or discipline an employee. If Ball State wins, the definition of supervisor under Title VII may expand; however, it would likely be limited to persons who actually control an employee’s daily activities.

 
Questions Presented: 

In Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998), and Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998), the Supreme Court held that under Title VII, an employer is vicariously liable for severe or pervasive workplace harassment by a supervisor of the victim. If the harasser was the victim's co-employee, however, the employer is not liable absent proof of negligence. In the decision below, the Seventh Circuit held that actionable harassment by a person whom the employer deemed a “supervisor” and who had the authority to direct and oversee the victim's daily work could not give rise to vicarious liability because the harasser did not also have the power to take formal employment actions against her. The question presented is:

Whether, as the Second, Fourth, and Ninth Circuits have held, the Faragher and Ellerth “supervisor” liability rule (i) applies to harassment by those whom the employer vests with authority to direct and oversee their victim's daily work, or whether, as the First, Seventh, and Eighth Circuits have held, the rule (ii) is limited to those harassers who have the power to “hire, fire, demote, promote, transfer, or discipline” their victims.

top

Issue

Whether, for purposes of employer liability for racial harassment in the workplace, an employee must have the power to tangibly affect the employment status of the victim in order to be considered a supervisor.

top

Written by: 
Jonathan Goddard
Zachary Glantz
Edited by: 
Lisa Schmidt
Acknowledgments: 

top

Thompson v. North American Stainless (09-291)

in

Oral argument: Dec. 7, 2010

Appealed from: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (June 5, 2009)

TITLE VII, RETALIATION, EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION, THIRD-PARTY STANDING

Petitioner Eric L. Thompson, a metallurgical engineer formerly employed by Respondent North American Stainless (“Stainless”), sued Stainless under Section 704(a) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging that Stainless fired him in retaliation for a gender discrimination complaint his then-fiancée (and now wife) Miriam Regalado filed against Stainless with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). The Sixth Circuit found that Thompson did not have standing to sue Stainless and dismissed his complaint. Thompson argues that Title VII not only prohibits third-party retaliation but also gives third-party victims standing to sue, primarily because this furthers Title VII’s goal of eliminating discrimination and is consistent with the EEOC’s longstanding interpretation of Title VII. In opposition, Stainless argues that Section 704(a) does not give those third parties standing to sue the allegedly retaliating employer because permitting such an action would contradict congressional intent and unnecessarily curtail employers’ ability to manage their workforces.

AT&T Corp. v. Hulteen (07-543)

in

Oral argument: Dec. 10, 2008

Appealed from: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Aug. 17, 2007)

PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION ACT, PREGNANCY LEAVE, TITLE VII, CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, SEX DISCRIMINATION

In 1987, Congress passed the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (“PDA”) to address the gap left by Title VII of the Civil Rights of 1964 (“Title VII”), which prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of sex. Prior to passage of the PDA, AT&T’s seniority system treated pregnancy leaves as different from disability leaves: women who took time off for pregnancy lost net service credit (“NCS”), which, among other things, was—and still is—the principal factor used to calculate pensions. Following passage of the PDA in 1978, AT&T immediately ceased reducing the NCS of women who had taken pregnancy leaves. However, AT&T did not restore service credits to female employees who took pregnancy leaves prior to the PDA’s enactment. Hulteen et al., all female employees who took pregnancy leaves prior to the passage of the PDA, sued AT&T. The Ninth Circuit held that AT&T violated Title VII’s prohibition of sex-based discrimination by failing to restore service credits to female employees who took pregnancy leaves prior to the PDA’s enactment. Petitioners, AT&T, argue that this reading impermissibly gives retroactive effect to the PDA.

Syndicate content