Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, among other federal statutes and New Jersey’s anti-discrimination laws, makes it clear that employment discrimination is illegal, and that it is also unlawful to retaliate against workers who stand up for their rights. However, some employers still practice discrimination and retaliation, while hiding their true motives for these employment decisions; and in other cases employers may have multiple motives–some that are lawful and some that are not.

When both a legitimate and an improper reason exist behind an employment decision, this is called a mixed-motive. Courts do not rule very consistently in retaliation cases involving mixed motives. Some courts have said that plaintiffs must prove that the improper motive was the driving force behind the employment action, while other courts have said plaintiffs only need to show an improper motive existed even if among proper motives. The U.S. Supreme Court has recently taken up a case that may clarify how such cases should be handled.

The case involves a former University of Southwestern Texas Medical Center faculty member who claims his former boss discriminated and retaliated against him. The doctor reportedly resigned from the medical center due to racially charged harassment and his boss at the medical center then prevented him from obtaining a position at an affiliated clinic. A federal court agreed with the doctor and awarded him $3.5 million in damages, but that award that was later reduced when an appeals court only partially upheld the ruling.

Now, the U.S. Supreme Court will review the case to determine whether it is necessary to prove but-for causation in federal retaliation cases–that the employer would not have taken the negative employment action absent an improper motive. On the contrary, the court could rule that plaintiffs only need to prove that an improper motive was one of multiple factors that culminated in the employment action.

The Supreme Court’s decision could have a significant impact on retaliation cases. In many cases, employers retaliate against workers who have complained of harassment or discrimination, for example, by firing them. These employers tend to disguise their true motives under generic masks–such as the employee’s tardiness, tendency to make personal calls at work, or poor attitude, for example. In such cases, it may be difficult to prove but-for causation even though a clear mixed motive exists.

Source: The Chronicle of Higher Education, “Supreme Court to Hear Workplace-Bias Case Involving U. of Texas Southwestern,” Andrew Mytelka, Jan. 18, 2013

• Federal and state employment law is constantly evolving and it can be difficult for New Jersey residents to keep knowledge of their employment rights up-to-date. Our Kingston, New Jersey, employment law firm helps workers who have been discriminated against or retaliated against stand up for their rights and obtain compensation for damages. To learn more about this process and our firm, please visit our Wrongful Termination page.