While this was a criminal case, the Supreme Court construed the meaning of "but for" causation across the entire body of the law, explicitly clarifying its own precedents in employment discrimination law to mean that there can be more than one but-for cause. In discussing its prior opinions in University of Tex. Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, 133 S.Ct. 2517, 2528 (2013), slip opinion at 11-12, and Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., 557 U.S. 167, 176 (2009), it quoted Nassar and Gross but substituted a bracketed "[a]" for the word "the" preceding the expression "'but for' cause." Accordingly, "but for" causation does not require a showing that an impermissible motive was the sole cause of the challenged action."
Earlier this week, the Supreme Court issued a decision explaining "but for" causation. Burrage v. United States, 2014 WL 273243 (Jan. 27, 2014) (No. 12-7515).
While this was a criminal case, the Supreme Court construed the meaning of "but for" causation across the entire body of the law, explicitly clarifying its own precedents in employment discrimination law to mean that there can be more than one but-for cause. In discussing its prior opinions in University of Tex. Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, 133 S.Ct. 2517, 2528 (2013), slip opinion at 11-12, and Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., 557 U.S. 167, 176 (2009), it quoted Nassar and Gross but substituted a bracketed "[a]" for the word "the" preceding the expression "'but for' cause." Accordingly, "but for" causation does not require a showing that an impermissible motive was the sole cause of the challenged action."
0 Comments
The Seventh Circuit held that the District Court (1) did not err in granting employer’s motion for summary judgment in employee’s Title VII and FLSA claims, but (2) did err in with regard to the Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) retaliation claim in Gaines v. K-Five Construction Corp., No. 12-2249 (January 3, 2014).
Gaines alleged that K-Five fired him after K-Five had cited him for insubordination associated with his initial refusal to drive two trucks that had been assigned to him. However, Gaines failed to establish that a similarly situated peer (his co-worker, who had been accused of similar misconduct) had received more favorable treatment. He also claimed unpaid wages for working an extra 15 minutes at the start of his shift. However, he could not demonstrate that he told anyone that he was working unauthorized overtime or that his notations at the bottom of his Daily Driver Report (DRR) were meant to indicate as such. On the other hand, the Seventh Circuit held that the District Court erred in granting K-Five's motion for summary judgment in Gaines's STAA claim. There, Gaines alleged that he was fired in retaliation for complaining about safety of K-Five's trucks. The record showed that Gaines's concerns about driving both trucks was reasonable, as one had a steering-wheel problem and other had an unsafe tail pan. Furthermore, K-Five's discipline of Gaines revolved around his refusal to drive those trucks. Additionally, Gaines could also base an STAA claim on fact that he had previously filed a DRR complaint that one of K-Five's truck was unsafe, even though that complaint contained an inaccurate statement about the condition of truck, where Gaines had good-faith belief that he was complaining about safety of truck. In EEOC v. Mach Mining LLC, No. 13-2456 (December 20, 2013), the Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded the District Court's denial of the EEOC's motion for summary judgment.
The EEOC's motion challenged employer Mach Mining's affirmative defense which sought to dismiss the underlying discrimination claim on ground that EEOC failed to satisfy 42 USC § 2000e-5(b) - a mandate to make good faith effort to settle underlying claim prior to filing lawsuit in court. The Seventh Circuit held that any alleged failure to conciliate underlying discrimination claim is not affirmative defense to merits of underlying claim because: (1) conciliation, as set forth in § 2000e-5(b), is informal process entrusted solely to EEOC’s expert judgment; and (2) any meaningful review regarding whether EEOC negotiated in good faith would require prohibited inquiry into substantive reasonableness of particular settlement offers. Choate Law is pleased to announce that Antoinette Choate has been named 2014 Illinois Rising Stars by Super Lawyers magazine, as one of the top attorneys in Illinois. This is the 5th year she has been selected.
Rising Stars are top up-and-coming attorneys who are no more than 40 years old or who have been practicing for no more than 10 years. No more than 2.5 percent of lawyers in a state are named to Rising Stars. |
As a Chicago employment lawyer, the firm focus primarily on employment law. Archives
June 2017
Categories
All
|