University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar

This article relies excessively on references to primary sources. Please improve this article by adding secondary or tertiary sources. Find sources: "University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (December 2019) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued April 24, 2013 Decided June 24, 2013
Full case name	University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar
Docket no.	12-484
Citations	570 U.S. 338 (more) 133 S. Ct. 2517; 186 L. Ed. 2d 503
Case history
Prior	674 F.3d 448 (5th Cir. 2012); rehearing en banc denied, 688 F.3d 211 (5th Cir. 2012); cert. granted, 568 U.S. 1140 (2013).
Holding
A plaintiff establishes a violation of the retaliation provision of Title VII if the plaintiff proves that the defendant would not have made the adverse employment action but for the defendant's retaliatory motive.
Court membership
Chief Justice John Roberts Associate Justices Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg Stephen Breyer · Samuel Alito Sonia Sotomayor · Elena Kagan
Case opinions
Majority	Kennedy, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito
Dissent	Ginsburg, joined by Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan
Laws applied
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338 (2013), was a Supreme Court of the United States case involving the standard of proof required for a retaliation claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.^[1] The Court held that while Title VII applies a mixed motive discrimination framework to claims of discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin (see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2), that framework did not apply to claims of retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3. The Court reasoned that based on its decision in Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. and on common law principles of tort law, the plaintiff was required to show that a retaliatory motive was the "but for" cause of the adverse employment action.