Employment Law

Nassar v. University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center — Study Notes

570 U.S. 338 (2013)

Study notes for Nassar v. University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center: professor notes, cold call prep, exam angles, and memory aids.

Title VII retaliation claims require proof that the protected activity was the 'but-for' cause of the adverse employment action.
Professor Notes

In Nassar v. University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, the Supreme Court addressed the standard of causation required for retaliation claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Court clarified that a plaintiff must establish that their protected activity—such as filing a discrimination complaint—was the 'but-for' cause of the adverse employment action taken by the employer. This case is crucial for understanding the burden of proof in employment discrimination cases, particularly in retaliation claims where the motive behind an employer's actions is scrutinized. Professors may emphasize the implications of this ruling for future claimants and the heightened burden it imposes which can make it more challenging for employees to prove retaliation claims successfully.

Cold Call Prep
  1. 1Explain the significance of 'but-for' causation in Title VII retaliation claims.
  2. 2What were the specific facts of Nassar's case that led to his claim of retaliation?
  3. 3Discuss how the decision in Nassar affects future employment law cases involving retaliation.
  4. 4Identify the role of the burden of proof in this case and its potential effects on plaintiffs.
  5. 5How might this ruling impact employers’ policies and procedures regarding employee complaints?
  6. 6What procedural steps must a plaintiff take to establish a retaliation claim under Title VII after this case?
  7. 7Compare this case to another Title VII case that uses a different standard of causation.
Mnemonic Device

But-for causation means an employer's action 'would not have occurred' but for the retaliation.

Distinguish From
CaseDistinction
Price Waterhouse v. HopkinsPrice Waterhouse established a mixed-motive standard, whereas Nassar requires a stricter 'but-for' causation standard.
Burke v. New York City Transit AuthorityBurke involved a Title VII claim where the focus was on proving discriminatory actions, contrasting with Nassar's focus on retaliation specifically.
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. GreenMcDonnell Douglas uses a burden-shifting framework but does not address the 'but-for' causation requirement established in Nassar.
Policy Arguments

For the Rule

Establishing a 'but-for' causation standard helps clarify the burden of proof required for retaliation claims, potentially reducing frivolous lawsuits.

Against the Rule

Imposing a stricter causation standard may deter legitimate employees from filing complaints for fear of not meeting the burden, undermining anti-discrimination laws.

Class Discussion Points
  • Analyze the impact of the 'but-for' standard on employee willingness to report discrimination.
  • Discuss whether there are alternative standards that could balance the interests of both employees and employers.
  • Examine how this ruling may affect the perception of workplace protections for marginalized groups.
Exam Angle

This case commonly appears on exams in discussions about the framework of Title VII claims, particularly in how causation affects retaliation claims and the implications for both employees and employers.

View Full Case Brief

Ace Your Cold Calls with Briefly

Get AI-powered case briefs, study notes, and cold call prep for every case in your casebook.