University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar

Supreme Court of the United States · 2013 · Torts

570 U.S. 338 (2013)

Updated July 23, 2026

TortsTitle VIIretaliationcausationbut-for causationmotivating factorstatus-based discrimination§ 2000e-3(a)

Facts

Respondent, a University faculty member and Hospital physician, complained to University officials that Dr. Levine harassed him because of his religion and Middle Eastern heritage. After he resigned his teaching post and wrote that his departure was due to Levine's alleged bias, Dr. Fitz stated that Levine had been publicly humiliated and needed to be publicly exonerated. The Hospital had offered respondent a staff physician job, but after Dr. Fitz objected on the ground that the affiliation agreement required staff physicians to be University faculty members, the Hospital withdrew the offer. Respondent then sued, alleging retaliation under Title VII based on Fitz's efforts to block the Hospital job.

Issue

Must a plaintiff asserting a retaliation claim under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a), prove that retaliation was a motivating factor in the employer's action, or must the plaintiff prove but-for causation? Specifically, does the motivating-factor standard in § 2000e-2(m) apply to retaliation claims?

Rule

Title VII retaliation claims under § 2000e-3(a) must be proved according to traditional principles of but-for causation. A plaintiff must establish that the unlawful retaliation would not have occurred in the absence of the alleged wrongful action or actions of the employer; the motivating-factor standard in § 2000e-2(m) applies only to status-based discrimination claims involving race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Talia Brooks worked for Lakefront Transit Services in Cleveland. After she filed an internal complaint alleging sex discrimination, her supervisor recommended termination, but the company also had undisputed records showing Talia had independently falsified safety logs in a way that normally required discharge.

In Talia's Title VII retaliation suit, she proves her complaint was one motive behind the termination. Which is the best statement of the causation standard?

Explanation. For a Title VII retaliation claim under § 2000e-3(a), the plaintiff must prove but-for causation: the adverse action would not have occurred in the absence of the employer's retaliatory motive. The motivating-factor standard in § 2000e-2(m) applies only to status-based discrimination claims involving race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, not retaliation. Sole-cause proof is not required.