The Supreme Court ruled in 2013 that a Plaintiff in a retaliation case must show that the adverse employment action would not have ocurred if they had not participated in the protected activity, this is known as the “but for” test. In a recent case the Third Circuit Federal Court of Appeals, Carvalho-Grevious v. Delaware State University, No. 15-3521 (March 21, 2017), held that in the summary judgment stage of a retaliation case, the “but for” standard does not apply, but rather a Plaintiff will only have to show that the protected activity was the “likely reason” for the adverse action. This could impact the number of cases filed, and the number that make it past summary judgment in the Third Circuit.
Workplace Fairness will continue to montior this issue and keep our content up to date as changes happen. Share us on facebook and help other workers get the information they need about their rights.
What are Right-to-Work laws and how do they affect you?
In the public-sector union context, right-to-work laws mean that union members do not have to pay union dues to be members of the union.
In states that have enacted right-to-work laws that apply to private employers, although states vary, most Right-to-