"But for" standard applies to retaliation claims

The Supreme Court has decided retaliation claims under Title VII require proof of "but for" causation establishing a confusing reality for trial judges and jurors making factual findings in cases involving discrimination claims and retaliation claims. Its confusing enough for attorneys. Now a finding of discrimination must be supported by the conclusion discrimination was a "motivating factor" while a finding of retaliation must be supported by a finding it was the "but for" cause for the adverse action.

Transsexual protected against discrimination

The 11th Circuit has affirmed summary judgment in favor of a transexual employee who was terminated from her public sector job. The Defendant "testified that his decision to dismiss Glenn was based on his perception of Glenn as 'a man dressed as a woman and made up as a woman,' and [Defendant] admitted that his decision to fire Glenn was based on 'the sheer fact of the transition.' [Defendant's] testimony provides ample direct evidence to support the district court’s conclusion that [Defendant] acted on the basis of Glenn’s gender non-conformity. Although he case was brought as a constitutional equal protection claim the court acknowledged the underlying rationale would apply in a Title VII context.

SCOTUS accepts third party retaliation case for next Term

Retaliation against an employee who complains about discrimination is unlawful. But when a female complains about discrimination and the subsequent adverse action alleged is taken against her husband or boyfriend is the victim of a third party reprisal protected? The Fifth Circuit has long held no, they are not. On the last day of the Term, the Supreme Court granted Cert. in Thompson v. North American Stainless LP, No. 09-291. Thompson was fired after his fiancee complained about discrimination. More after the jump.