The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that focuses on the standards of proof plaintiffs must establish to successfully pursue retaliation and other employment cases.

According to the petition for writ of certiorari, which was granted by the U.S. Supreme Court in University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Naiel Nassar, M.D. on Friday, there is a split among the U.S. appellate courts on this issue.

In Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins in 1989, the court held the discrimination provision of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires a plaintiff to prove only that discrimination was a “motivating factor” for an adverse employment action, said the writ.

But in Gross v. FBL Financial Services Inc. in 2009, the court held that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 requires proof that age was “the but-for cause” of an adverse employment action “such that a named defendant is not liable if it would have taken the same action for other, nondiscriminatory reasons.”

The writ filed by the Dallas-based medical center's attorneys says the appellate courts have been divided “on whether Gross or Price Waterhouse establishes the general rule for other federal employment statues such as Title VII's retaliation provisions that do not specifically authorized mixed-motive claims.”

In the underlying case, Dr. Nassar, an assistant professor at the Dallas-based medical school, felt that his supervisor, Dr. Beth Levine, treated him unfairly because of his Middle Eastern background. Dr. Nassar sought the same job at Parkland Hospital in Dallas, with which the medical school was affiliated.

%%BREAK%%

However, an affiliation agreement between the medical school and the hospital, as well as the hospital's rules, required that a physician seeking regular employment within the hospital's geography be employed by the medical school. Based on this agreement, the medical center's chair of internal medicine, Dr. Gregory Fitz, refused to hire Dr. Nassar, according to the medical center's petition.

However, unknown to Dr. Fitz, another hospital employee “continued to work behind the scenes” to hire Dr. Nassar at the hospital and an offer letter was sent to him in July 2006. Dr. Nassar then wrote a letter resigning from the medical school and accusing Dr. Levine of discriminating against him. The center withdrew its offer letter shortly afterward, according to court papers.

Dr. Nassar sued the medical school for constructive discharge and retaliation. The jury was instructed that Dr. Nassar needed to prove only that discrimination was one of the motives for Dr. Fitz's actions, as per the Price Waterhouse holding. A jury found the medical school liable for constructive discharge and retaliation and awarded him about $3.5 million in damages. A panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans subsequently reversed the constructive discharge verdict, but upheld the retaliation charge. It remanded the case for reconsideration of Dr. Nasser's monetary recovery and award of attorney's fees.

The 5th Circuit denied the medical school's petition for an en banc hearing in July 2012, and the center filed its appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court in October.