But-for or Not But-for, The Question is Answered

Authors

Samuel Rawlings Barnett Jr., Belmont University - College of Law Student

Abstract

In But-For or Not But-For, the Question Is Answered, Samuel Rawlings Barnett Jr. examines the ongoing federal circuit split regarding the appropriate causation standard for retaliation claims under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). While some circuits apply a “motivating factor” standard, others require plaintiffs to prove “but-for” causation. The Note situates this division within the Supreme Court’s broader shift in employment discrimination jurisprudence from the mixed-motive framework of Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins to the stricter “but-for” standard articulated in Gross, Nassar, and Comcast. Through close statutory analysis of 29 U.S.C. § 2615(a)(1) and § 2615(a)(2), and consideration of the Department of Labor’s interpretive regulations, the author argues that FMLA retaliation claims are properly grounded in § 2615(a)(2), whose “because of” language signals congressional intent to require but-for causation. The Note concludes that the Supreme Court should resolve the split by endorsing the Eleventh Circuit’s approach and, alternatively, that Congress should amend the FMLA to clarify the governing causation standard.

Recommended Citation

Barnett Jr., Samuel Rawlings (2025) "But-for or Not But-for, The Question is Answered," Belmont Law Review: Vol. 13: Iss. 1, Article 5.
Available at: https://repository.belmont.edu/lawreview/vol13/iss1/5