General Counsel, P.C.

  • Practice Areas
    • Business Law
      • Business Breakups in Virginia
      • Contract Management
      • Minority Shareholder Protections
      • Emerging Companies
      • Entity Formation
      • Foreign Companies Entering U.S. Market
      • Real Estate and Leases
      • Starting a Business, Licensing & Compliance
      • Registered Agent Services
      • Succession Planning for Business Owners
      • Tax Law Matters
      • Charitable Solicitation Practice Group
      • Intellectual Property
        • Trade Secrets
        • Copyright
        • Trademark
    • Employment Law
      • Employment Documentation
        • Building Your Cornerstone
        • Employee Document Vault
        • Employee Handbook Tuneup Services
        • Guidelines for Hiring or Firing Employees
        • Separation Agreements
      • Drug Testing
        • Drug Testing Your Workforce – Best Practices
        • Laws Affecting Drug Testing Policies
      • Regulatory Issues
        • VA, MD, DC, Rights & Obligations
        • Age Discrimination
        • Americans with Disabilities Act
        • At-Will Employment
        • Fair Labor Standards Act
        • Family Medical Leave Act
        • Pregnancy Discrimination Act
        • Title VII
      • Non-Competition Agreements
        • District of Columbia
        • Maryland
        • Virginia
      • For Employers of Uniformed Services Members
      • Employer Considerations For Government Contractors
      • For Non-Profits
    • Family Law
      • Divorce
        • Collaborative Divorce
        • Grounds for Divorce
          • Fourth Level Menu Sample
        • High Net Divorce
        • Same Sex Divorce
        • Military Divorce
        • Uncontested Divorce
        • Litigation vs. Alternative Dispute Resolution in Divorce
        • Post-Divorce Enforcement and Appeals
        • Alimony and Spousal Support
        • Child Custody
        • Child Support
        • Filing for Divorce in Virginia
        • Divorce Security Clearance
      • Property Division
      • Alimony and Spousal Support
      • Child Support
      • Child Custody and Visitation
      • Marital Agreements
      • International Family Law
      • Domestic Violence and Protective Orders
      • Co-Parenting in Virginia
    • Government Contracts
      • Bid Protests
      • Government Contract Claims and Appeals
      • Getting Government Contracts: Small Business Certification Services
        • 8(a) Small Business
        • HUBZone Small Business
        • SDVOSB Program
        • Veteran-Owned Small Business
        • Women-Owned Small Business
    • Litigation
      • Arbitration, Mediation & Alternative Dispute Resolution Attorneys
      • Commercial & Business Litigation
      • Defamation
      • Employment Disputes
      • Government Contracting Disputes
      • Intellectual Property Disputes
      • Local Counsel
      • Pre-Litigation
    • Estate Planning
      • Estate Planning FAQs
      • Trusts
      • Wills
      • Families With Children
      • Business Succession Planning
      • Asset Protection Planning
      • Celebrity Estate Planning Mistakes
      • Legal Business Contingency Plans
      • Become a Referral Partner
    • Probate Administration
      • Probate is Complex – FAQ and Answers
      • Trust & Estate Litigation
  • About Us
    • Overview
    • Biographies
      • Heba K. Carter
      • Grace Clagett
      • Elizabeth Hart
      • David Kaye
      • Alexis Ruark
    • Our Founder
    • How We Help
  • Resources
    • Practical Counsel Blog
    • Bid Protest Weekly
    • VetWorking
    • Video Library
    • Webinars
    • Quotes in The News
    • GCPC First Generation Law Student Scholarship
  • Testimonials
  • Contact
  • Make Payments
703-556-0411

Retaliation Standard Tightened — But, Employers Must Still Exercise Extreme Caution

Tuesday, 24 September 2013 / Published in Labor & Employment

Retaliation Standard Tightened — But, Employers Must Still Exercise Extreme Caution

Retaliation claims are a constant concern for employers (and management-side employment attorneys).  Since 1997, retaliation claims filed with the EEOC have risen from 18,198 to 37,836 in 2012.  The Supreme Court has attributed this rise, in part, to the fact that an employee potentially facing adverse employment action could attempt to delay/disrupt the adverse employment action (demotion, discharge, etc.) by simply asserting an allegation of discrimination.  Thereafter, if the employer proceeded with the adverse employment action, the employee could claim it was retaliation.

Fear of a retaliation claim, accordingly, often “handcuffed” employers from taking justifiable adverse employment action.  This summer, the U.S. Supreme Court provided employers some relief.  In University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified the legal standard for retaliation claims and adopted a strict causation standard that will make it more difficult for employees seeking to prove retaliation.

In retaliation cases, a plaintiff must prove three elements:

  1. Protected activity such as complaining of discrimination or participating in a discrimination investigation;
  2. Adverse employment action; and
  3. Causation.

​The causation element is the crucial piece for employment litigation. Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Nassar, many courts applied a “mixed motive standard” to employment retaliation claims.  This mixed motive standard only required employees to establish that his/her protected status was a reason for the adverse employment  action–it did not need to be the only reason.

In Nassar, the Supreme Court rejected the mixed motive standard applied by the lower courts and held, for retaliation claims, an employee must establish that a retaliatory motive was the “but for” cause of the adverse employment action.  The employee must prove that the adverse action would not have occurred in the absence of the discriminatory intent. With this “but for” standard, the burden of proof in discrimination litigation will not shift to the employer on the retaliation claim and, accordingly, employers should be able to obtain dismissal of retaliation claims more readily through summary judgment.

PRACTICAL COUNSEL:  Although the Nassar decision provides some relief from the “handcuffs” of potential retaliation claims, employers must still be very careful when terminating any employee who has made allegations of discrimination.  Where prior to the Nassar decision, an adverse employment decision might be put on indefinite hold by an employees unfounded allegations of discrimination, after Nassar employers can proceed with adverse employment actions – but only following careful review to ensure that the adverse employment action is objectively justified and supported by credible evidence.

If you have any questions about this article, need help with employment decisions, or any other legal matter, please contact Merritt Green, Managing Partner and Chair of General Counsel, P.C.’s Labor and Employment Practice Group at mgreen@gcpc.com
or 703-556-0411.

  • Tweet

TOP ARTICLE CATEGORIES

  • BUSINESS

  • LABOR & EMPLOYMENT

  • FAMILY LAW

  • GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

  • LITIGATION

Subscribe to Blogs and Updates

Name
Areas of Interest:
The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.

Disclaimer | Privacy Policy

Consent(Required)

Address:

1320 Old Chain Bridge Road, #440
McLean, VA 22101

Hours of Operation:

Mon – Fri, 8AM – 5PM

Phone Number:

+1 703-556-0411


  • HOME
  • ABOUT US
  • PRIVACY POLICY
  • DISCLAIMER
  • SITEMAP
  • CONTACT US
  • MAKE A PAYMENT

General Counsel, P.C. BBB Business Review

© 2025 General Counsel, P.C. | Website Design & Development by High Level Thinkers

TOP