Impact of Supreme Court Pro-Employer Title VII Decisions Blunted by State Laws

The authors analyze two decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court that narrow the circumstances under which employers can be held liable for retaliation or harassment claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The U.S. Supreme Court issued two important decisions near the end of its term that narrow the circumstances under which employers can be held liable for retaliation or harassment claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In each case, the Court rejected broader Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) interpretations of the law in favor of setting a higher bar for plaintiffs bringing federal claims. Employers should keep in mind, however, that the legal standards under many state and local laws may not be affected by the Supreme Court’s rulings.

In University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, the Court held that plaintiffs claiming retaliation for exercising rights protected by Title VII must show that the adverse action complained of would not have occurred “but for” illegal retaliation by the employer, refusing to extend to retaliation claims the more plaintiff-friendly “mixed motive” standard that is available for Title VII discrimination claims. In Vance v. Ball State University, decided the same day, the Court held that employers are not presumptively vicariously liable for harassment committed by an employee who directs the day-to-day tasks of a complainant, if the harasser was not empowered to take a “tangible employment action” against the complainant.

Download: Impact of Supreme Court Pro-Employer Title VII Decisions Blunted by State Laws