May 14, 2014.
It’s an important distinction for employers. If a court believes an employer when it says that the employee would not have been hired/promoted/given a raise anyway, many of the 30,000+ retaliation claims filed each year would be dismissed. That is, the burden would be on the employee to show that “but for” the employer’s retaliation, the employee would have gotten the job/promotion/raise. However, if the employee need only show that retaliation was a substantial or motivating factor, employers would have a more difficult path to a dismissal or win. The Court worried that applying a lesser causation standard would give an employee about to lose his job the advantage to set up a frivolous claim if he/she cries “wolf” before he or she is fired. The Court therefore held that an employee must show that she would have gotten the job/promotion, etc. had the employer not retaliated against her because she complained of discrimination.
For more major Supreme Court decisions in employment law, check out Courtney King’s summary for the American Bar Association’s The Young Lawyer. To learn more about how to defend an employee retaliation claim and employment law, contact the Goosmann Law Firm at info@goosmannlaw.com or call 712-226-4000.
Follow Emilee Boyle Gehling on Twitter @EmileeAtGLF!
Photo Copyright: tomwang / 123RF Stock Photo