• print
  • decrease text sizeincrease text size
main content

Your Rights
Third Circuit: Standard of Review for Retaliation at Summary Judgment Stage is "Likely Reason," not "But For"

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. 

  • Tracking image for JustAnswer widget
  • Find an Employment Lawyer

  • Support Workplace Fairness

Follow us on:


Find an Employment Attorney

The Workplace Fairness Attorney Directory features lawyers from across the United States who primarily represent workers in employment cases. Please note that Workplace Fairness does not operate a lawyer referral service and does not provide legal advice, and that Workplace Fairness is not responsible for any advice that you receive from anyone, attorney or non-attorney, you may contact from this site.

Tracking image for JustAnswer widget