Thursday, April 11, 2013
Brief of Employment Law Professors As Amici Curiae in Support of Respondent in Nassar Title VII Retaliation Case
Update: Rebecca Hamburg Cappy (National Employment Lawyers' Association (NELA)) has helpfully provided the link to NELA's brief in Nassar (joined by 19 other organizations) and the brief of the SG, EEOC, and DOJ in Nassar.
Sandra Sperino (Cincinnati), Deborah Widiss (Indiana-Bloomington), and Mike Zimmer (Loyola-Chicago) filed an amicus brief on behalf of a group of employment law professors (including me) yesterday in the Nassar U.S. Supreme Court Title VII retaliation case. Here is a copy of the brief.
From the Summary of Argument Section:
The analysis in this case is straightforward. The text of Title VII, its consistent interpretation over time, and a long line of cases holding that retaliation is encompassed within discrimination all confirm that a plaintiff can proceed under a motivating factor standard . . . .
Amici request that the Court interpret Title VII to require a plaintiff to establish that protected activity was a motivating factor in the employment decision. This interpretation affirms the consistent meaning of Title VII’s provisions as expressed in Title VII’s original language, this Court’s precedent, and the 1991 amendments. It is also the standard that best advances the underlying purpose of the retaliation provision.
Needless to say, check out the whole thing! We all hope the Court does.