## Facts

- The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center (UTSW) employed Dr. Naiel Nassar as a faculty member; he also worked as a staff physician at an affiliated hospital under an agreement affecting staffing offers.
- Nassar alleged his UTSW supervisor made biased remarks and treated him adversely based on his Middle Eastern descent and religion, along with disputes about his work performance.
- Nassar resigned his faculty position and stated in a letter that he was leaving due to alleged harassment, while seeking to remain employed at the affiliated hospital.
- A UTSW supervisor objected to the hospital hiring Nassar for a vacant position, and the hospital withdrew the offer.
- Nassar sued UTSW under Title VII for (1) status-based discrimination/constructive discharge and (2) retaliation for complaining about discrimination.

## Issues

1. Whether Title VII retaliation claims under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a) require proof that retaliation was the but-for cause of the challenged employment action.
2. Whether the “motivating factor” standard in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(m) applies to Title VII retaliation claims.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court vacated the Fifth Circuit’s judgment and remanded.
- The Court held that Title VII retaliation claims must be proved under traditional but-for causation, not the motivating-factor standard in § 2000e-2(m).
- Because the jury was instructed under a motivating-factor standard for retaliation, the retaliation verdict could not stand under the correct causation rule.

## Legal Principles

- Absent a clear statutory indication to the contrary, federal statutes using “because of” language are read to require but-for causation.
- The “motivating factor” rule in § 2000e-2(m) applies to status-based discrimination identified in that provision (race, color, religion, sex, national origin) and does not extend to retaliation claims under § 2000e-3(a).
- Where Congress includes a causation standard in one provision but omits it from another, courts generally treat the difference as intentional.

## Conclusion

Title VII retaliation plaintiffs must prove that retaliation was the determinative cause of the adverse action; showing retaliation was one of multiple motives is insufficient, and verdicts reached under a motivating-factor instruction require reconsideration under the but-for standard.


Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338 (2013)