Constructive Discharge Cases

COTTON v BANKS Docket No. 319001. Submitted February 10, 2015, at Detroit. Decided March 26, 2015, at 9:10 a.m. Tramaine Cotton brought a wrongful-termination suit in the Wayne Circuit Court against the state of Michigan and Brian Banks (a member of the Michigan House of Representatives by whom Cotton had been hired as a legislative assistant). Cotton alleged that Banks terminated his employment because Cotton rejected Banks’s romantic advances. Banks contended that he terminated Cotton’s employment after learning that Cotton had been driving without a valid driver’s license and that a bench warrant had been issued for Cotton’s arrest following his failure to appear at a court hearing related to a traffic violation. Cotton’s suit claimed that Banks discriminated against him on the basis of his sex, demanded sexual favors as a condition of employment, created a hostile work environment, and retaliated against him for reporting Banks’s conduct. Cotton also claimed that Banks’s conduct constituted the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress. The state moved for summary disposition on the basis that it was not Cotton’s employer for purposes of his civil rights claim and that his intentional tort claim should have been brought in the Court of Claims. Banks claimed that his conduct was protected by the legislative immunity provided under the Speech or Debate Clause of Michigan’s Constitution, Const 1963, art 4, § 11, and moved for summary disposition on that basis. The court, Susan D. Borman, J., denied Banks’s motion and granted the state’s motion for summary disposition. The court also granted Cotton’s motion to amend his complaint to add the House of Representatives as a defendant. Cotton’s amended complaint alleged civil rights violations against Banks and the House of Representatives and one count of intentional infliction of emotional distress against Banks alone. Banks appealed. The Court of Appeals held,'. 1. The trial court erred by determining that the Civil Rights Act, MCL 37.2101 et seq., effectively waived the legislative immunity provided by the Speech or Debate Clause of the Michigan Constitution, Const 1963, art 4, § 11, for certain acts of legislators, because the Civil Rights Act did not expressly and unequivocally state such a waiver. Waiver of the constitutional immunity offered by the Speech or Debate Clause cannot be made by inference. 2. The trial court properly held that Banks was not immune from civil suit under the Speech or Debate Clause because terminating Cotton’s employment did not constitute activity within the legitimate sphere of legislative activity for which the immunity was intended. Banks’s decision to terminate Cotton’s employment was not integral to the legislative process. That is, Banks’s personnel management was not essential to the consideration and passage or rejection of proposed legislation, nor did it involve a matter solely within the jurisdiction of the Legislature. 3. Banks was not protected by the Speech or Debate Clause because his decision to terminate Cotton’s employment was administrative, not legislative, in nature. Whether the absolute immunity provided legislators by the Speech or Debate Clause protects a legislator from civil arrest and civil process for the legislator’s employment decisions does not depend on the nature of an employee’s duties. Rather, the immunity offered by the Speech or Debate Clause depends on whether the legislator is engaged in a true legislative act, not simply an act that has some connection to the legislative process. Trial courts must be careful to distinguish between a true legislative act, and an act that is merely performed by a legislator. 4. The trial court properly denied Banks’s motion for summary disposition, which was based on the ground that he was protected by the absolute immunity found in the Speech or Debate Clause. Banks was not entitled to absolute immunity because analysis of Banks’s alleged misconduct — terminating Cotton’s employment for improper reasons — did not require an investigation into Banks’s legislative activity. 5. The trial court did not err by denying Banks’s motion for summary disposition based on his contention that the Civil Rights Act provided the exclusive remedy for Cotton’s claim of sexual harassment and his consequent allegation of the common-law tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Civil Rights Act did not abrogate Cotton’s right to bring suit against Banks, because the statutory language in the Civil Rights Act contains no reference to legislators, and it does not preclude an action for the intentional infliction of emotional distress even when the same facts could give rise to a statutory violation of the Civil Rights Act. Affirmed. 1. Constitutional Law — Speech or Debate Clause — Legislative Immunity— Waiver. The Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, MCL 37.2101 et seq., does not expressly and unequivocally waive the absolute immunity to which a legislator is entitled under the Speech or Debate Clause of the Michigan Constitution, Const 1963, act 4, § 11, and a waiver of the immunity cannot be made by inference. 2. Constitutional Law — Speech or Debate Clause — Legislative Immunity. The Speech or Debate Clause of the Michigan Constitution immunizes a legislator from civil arrest and civil process premised on actions that the legislator took within the legitimate sphere of legislative activity; a legislator’s conduct that is integrally related to the consideration and passage or rejection of proposed legislation or concerns a matter solely within the Legislature’s jurisdiction is engaged in conduct within the legitimate sphere of legislative activity. 3. Constitutional Law — Speech or Debate Clause — Legislative Immunity— Employment Decisions. Whether a legislator is immune from civil arrest and civil process under the Speech or Debate Clause for decisions related to his or her staffs employment does not depend on the nature of an employee’s duties; whether a legislator is entitled to immunity depends on whether the legislator’s conduct constituted a true legislative act and was not merely an act performed by a legislator. 4. Constitutional Law — Speech or Debate Clause — Legislative Immunity— Investigation Into Legislator’s Conduct. A legislator is absolutely immune from civil arrest and civil process when evaluation of the legislator’s conduct would require an investigation into his or her legislative activity. Darryl K. Segars for Trámame Cotton. The Bradley Law Center, LLC (by Avery J. Bradley and Andrea J. Bradley), for Brian Banks. Dickinson Wright, PLLC (by Peter H. Ellsworth, Jeffery V. Stuckey, and Ryan M. Shannon), for the Michigan House of Representatives. Before: SERVITTO, P.J., and STEPHENS and M. J. KELLY, JJ. M. J. KELLY, J. In this employment dispute, defendant Representative Brian Banks of the Michigan House of Representatives appeals by right the trial court’s order denying his motion for summary disposition of the claims by Banks’s former staff member, plaintiff, Tramaine Cotton. The primary issue on appeal is whether Banks has absolute immunity from suit under the Speech or Debate Clause of Michigan’s Constitution for personnel decisions involving those members of his staff who might have involvement in the legislative process. See Const 1963, art 4, § 11. For the reasons fully explained below, we conclude that there were no errors warranting relief. Accordingly, we affirm. I. BASIC FACTS According to Cotton, Banks hired him in January 2013 to serve as a driver. Cotton alleged that, after his hire, Banks continuously expressed his desire to have a dating relationship with him, but Cotton rejected Banks’s advances. After Cotton made it clear that he would not agree to a romantic relationship, Cotton maintained that Banks began to assign him tasks that were beyond the scope of his employment and asked him to work on days he was not supposed to work. Cotton alleged that he was constructively discharged in April 2013. Banks, however, presented a very different version of events in the trial court. Banks stated that he hired Cotton in February 2013 to serve as a legislative assistant and that Cotton’s duties included responding to constituent concerns, attending functions, and driving Banks and other representatives between Detroit and Lansing. Banks claimed that he began proceedings to terminate Cotton’s employment after he learned that Cotton had been arrested for driving on a suspended license and had missed a court date, after which a bench warrant issued for Cotton’s arrest. He stated that Cotton was terminated from his employment in May 2013 for those reasons. In May 2013, Cotton sued Banks and the state of Michigan for wrongful termination. Cotton alleged that Banks violated Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, MCL 37.2101 et seq., by discriminating against him on the basis of his sex, by demanding sexual favors as a condition of employment, by creating a hostile work environment, and by retaliating against him. Cotton also alleged that Banks’s sexual harassment constituted the intentional infliction of emotional distress. Cotton alleged that the state, as Banks’s employer, was vicariously liable for Banks’s wrongful conduct. In August 2013, the state moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(4) and (10). The State argued that, because employees of the House of Representatives were excluded from state civil service, the State was not Cotton’s employer for purposes of the Civil Rights Act. The state also argued that the circuit court did not have jurisdiction over Cotton’s intentional tort claim — that claim had to be brought in the Court of Claims. Banks moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7) and (8) in September 2013. Banks argued that he was absolutely immune, under MCL 691.1407(5), from claims arising out of his termination of Cotton’s employment. He claimed he was entitled to immunity under an unpublished decision from a circuit court because his decision to terminate Cotton involved an integral part of the legislative process, but Banks did not specifically argue that he had immunity under Const 1963, art 4, § 11. Additionally, Banks argued that the trial court must dismiss Cotton’s claim of retaliation because Cotton did not plead that he reported the alleged sexual harassment to anyone before his discharge. Cotton’s claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress similarly had to be dismissed, Banks stated, because that claim, as alleged, involved wrongful sexual discrimination in employment, and the Civil Rights Act is the exclusive remedy for such a claim. In response, Cotton argued that the Civil Rights Act constitutes an exception to the immunity provided under MCL 691.1407 and, in any event, the acts of sexual harassment were outside the scope of Banks’s authority as a representative. He also maintained that the Civil Rights Act is not the exclusive remedy for the harms occasioned by sexual harassment. Therefore, he argued, the trial court should deny Banks’s motion for summary disposition. In his reply brief, Banks cited Const 1963, art 4, § 11, and for the first time argued that he had absolute immunity from suit under the Speech or Debate Clause of Michigan’s Constitution for any personnel decisions involving his staff. Banks argued that the undisputed evidence — namely the job description for a legislative assistant and copies of correspondence — showed that Cotton’s job duties were integrally related to the legislative process. On that basis, Banks claimed he was immune from liability for his actions related to Cotton’s employment. In October 2013, the trial court held a hearing on the motions. At the hearing, the trial court expressed its belief that the Civil Rights Act created an exception to all governmental immunity, including immunity provided under the Speech or Debate Clause. The trial court also did not believe that Cotton was so integrally related to the legislative process that immunity would apply. As for Cotton’s retaliation claim, the trial court refused to consider Banks’s evidence that Cotton did not report the alleged harassment because Banks’s motion was brought under MCR 2.116(C)(8). See MCR 2.116(G)(5). Additionally, the trial court did not agree that the Civil Rights Act preempted Cotton’s claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Finally, the trial court agreed that the state was not Cotton’s employer and that the claims against it should be dismissed. The trial court entered an order granting the state’s motion for summary disposition and dismissed the state without prejudice. It also entered a separate order allowing Cotton to amend his complaint to include the House of Representatives as a defendant. Finally, the trial court entered an order denying Banks’s motion for summary disposition. Cotton soon filed his first amended complaint naming the Michigan House of Representatives as a defendant. In his amended complaint, Cotton alleged that he reported the sexual harassment to his superiors. Cotton again alleged four counts against Banks and the House of Representatives premised on violations of the Civil Rights Act, and a fifth claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress against Banks alone. Banks then appealed in this Court. II. THE SPEECH OR DEBATE CLAUSE A. STANDARDS OF REVIEW Banks first argues that the trial court erred when it denied his motion for summary disposition, which was based on the ground that he was absolutely immune from suit under Const 1963, art 4, § 11. He maintains that Michigan courts should construe Michigan’s Speech or Debate Clause similarly to the federal courts’ construction of the federal Speech or Debate Clause. Relying on federal authority, Banks contends that this Court should conclude that the Speech or Debate Clause applies to bar any claims premised on acts or omissions arising from the legislative process. According to Banks, because his decision to terminate Cotton implicated the legislative process, the trial court should have determined that he had absolute immunity under Const 1963, art 4, § 11. This Court reviews de novo a trial court’s decision on a motion for summary disposition. Barnard Mfg Co, Inc v Gates Performance Engineering, Inc, 285 Mich App 362, 369; 775 NW2d 618 (2009). This Court also reviews de novo whether the trial court properly interpreted and applied Michigan’s Constitution. Wayne Co v Hathcock, 471 Mich 445, 455; 684 NW2d 765 (2004). B. CIVIL IMMUNITY UNDER THE SPEECH OR DEBATE CLAUSE Michigan’s Speech or Debate Clause provides legislators with a privilege against civil arrest and civil process during sessions of the Legislature and immunity from liability for their speech in either house: Except as provided by law, senators and representatives shall be privileged from civil arrest and civil process during sessions of the legislature and for five days next before the commencement and after the termination thereof. They shall not be questioned in any other place for any speech in either house. [Const 1963, art 4, § 11.] The purpose of the privilege from civil arrest and civil process, our Supreme Court explained, is “to protect the legislators from the trouble, worry and inconvenience of court proceedings during the session, and for a certain time before and after, so that the State could have their undivided time and attention in public affairs.” Auditor General v Wayne Circuit Judge, 234 Mich 540, 542; 208 NW 696 (1926) (construing Const 1908, art 5, § 8, the predecessor to the present Speech or Debate Clause). Although an unreasonably long period of immunity might result in the denial of due process in an extreme case, the privilege must generally be construed to give effect to the policy which underlies it: to prevent both actual distraction and potential distraction from public duty during the legislative session. Bishop v Wayne Circuit Judge, 395 Mich 672, 677; 237 NW2d 465 (1976). The immunity provision in the Speech or Debate Clause is similarly intended to protect legislators from the distraction of litigation. See Prelesnik v Esquina, 132 Mich App 341, 347; 347 NW2d 226 (1984). Read literally, the clause only provides senators and representatives with immunity for speeches made in either house — that is, from being “questioned in any other place for any speech in either house.” See Const 1963, art 4, § 11. Because Michigan’s Speech or Debate Clause is substantially similar to the Speech or Debate Clause found in the Constitution of the United States, it should be similarly construed. See Prelesnik, 132 Mich App at 347, citing Eastland v United States Servicemen’s Fund, 421 US 491; 95 S Ct 1813; 44 L Ed 2d 324 (1975). The United States Supreme Court has stated that the Speech or Debate Clause was the product of the English experience and was intended to ensure the independence of the legislative branch from interference by the executive branch or a possibly hostile judiciary. Eastland, 421 US at 502. But, the Court noted, it had not limited the protection provided by the Speech or Debate Clause to acts of interference by public officials: The applicability of the Clause to private civil actions is supported by the absoluteness of the term “shall not be questioned,” and the sweep of the term “in any other Place.” In reading the Clause broadly we have said that legislators acting within the sphere of legitimate legislative activity “should be protected not only from the consequences of litigation’s results but also from the burden of defending themselves.” Just as a criminal prosecution infringes upon the independence which the Clause is designed to preserve, a private civil action, whether for an injunction or damages, creates a distraction and forces Members to divert their time, energy, and attention from their legislative tasks to defend the litigation. Private civil actions also may be used to delay and disrupt the legislative function. Moreover, whether a criminal action is instituted by the Executive Branch, or a civil action is brought by private parties, judicial power is still brought to bear on Members of Congress and legislative independence is imperiled. We reaffirm that once it is determined that Members are acting within the “legitimate legislative sphere” the Speech or Debate Clause is an absolute bar to interference. [Id. at 503 (citations omitted).] Consequently, in the absence of a waiver of the immunity, the Speech or Debate Clause immunizes a legislator from civil suits premised on actions that he or she took within the legitimate sphere of legislative activity. Id. C. WAIVER OF IMMUNITY UNDER THE ELLIOTT-LARSEN CIVIL RIGHTS ACT Banks initially argued that the trial court should dismiss Cotton’s claims because Banks had immunity under MCL 691.1407(5), and Cotton failed to plead in avoidance of that immunity. See Yono v Dep’t of Transp (On Remand), 306 Mich App 671, 682; 858 NW2d 128 (2014) (stating that a plaintiff must plead in avoidance of governmental immunity by alleging facts that, if true, would establish that his or her claim falls within an exception to governmental immunity). Cotton did, however, plead claims under the Civil Rights Act, and our Supreme Court has recognized that the act constitutes an exception to the immunity provided by MCL 691.1407. See Mack v Detroit, 467 Mich 186, 195; 649 NW2d 47 (2002). Banks later asserted before the trial court that he was also entitled to immunity under the Speech or Debate Clause, Const 1963, art 4, § 11. On appeal, Banks has abandoned any contention that MCL 691.1407 immunizes him from claims brought under the Civil Rights Act; instead, he now relies exclusively on the Speech or Debate Clause as the source of his immunity. Defendant Michigan House of Representatives notes that at the hearing on Banks’s motion for summary disposition, the trial court expressed its belief that there was no immunity for a

UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER, Petitioner v. Naiel NASSAR. No. 12-484. Supreme Court of the United States Argued April 24, 2013. Decided June 24, 2013. Daryl L. Joseffer, Washington, DC, for Petitioner. Brian P. Lauten, Dallas, TX, for Respondent. Melissa Arbus Sherry, for the United States as amicus curiae, by special leave of the Court, supporting the respondent. Greg Abbott, Attorney General of Texas, Daniel T. Hodge, First Assistant Attorney General, David C. Mattax, Deputy Attorney General for Defense Litigation James "Beau" Eccles, Division Chief-General Litigation, Office of the Attorney General, Daryl L. Joseffer, Counsel of Record, Carolyn M. Sweeney, King & Spalding LLP, Washington, DC, Michael W. Johnston, Merritt E. McAlister, King & Spalding LLP, Atlanta, GA, Lars Hagen, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Austin, TX, Myrna Salinas Baumann, King & Spalding LLP, Austin, TX, for Petitioner. Michael T. Kirkpatrick, Allison M. Zieve, Public Citizen Litigation Group, Washington, DC, Charla Aldous, Brent Walker, Aldous Law Firm, Dallas, TX, Brian P. Lauten, Counsel of Record, Sawicki & Lauten, LLP, Dallas, TX, for Respondent. Justice KENNEDY delivered the opinion of the Court. When the law grants persons the right to compensation for injury from wrongful conduct, there must be some demonstrated connection, some link, between the injury sustained and the wrong alleged. The requisite relation between prohibited conduct and compensable injury is governed by the principles of causation, a subject most often arising in elaborating the law of torts. This case requires the Court to define those rules in the context of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., which provides remedies to employees for injuries related to discriminatory conduct and associated wrongs by employers. Title VII is central to the federal policy of prohibiting wrongful discrimination in the Nation's workplaces and in all sectors of economic endeavor. This opinion discusses the causation rules for two categories of wrongful employer conduct prohibited by Title VII. The first type is called, for purposes of this opinion, status-based discrimination. The term is used here to refer to basic workplace protection such as prohibitions against employer discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, in hiring, firing, salary structure, promotion and the like. See § 2000e-2(a). The second type of conduct is employer retaliation on account of an employee's having opposed, complained of, or sought remedies for, unlawful workplace discrimination. See § 2000e-3(a). An employee who alleges status-based discrimination under Title VII need not show that the causal link between injury and wrong is so close that the injury would not have occurred but for the act. So-called but-for causation is not the test. It suffices instead to show that the motive to discriminate was one of the employer's motives, even if the employer also had other, lawful motives that were causative in the employer's decision. This principle is the result of an earlier case from this Court, Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228, 109 S.Ct. 1775, 104 L.Ed.2d 268 (1989), and an ensuing statutory amendment by Congress that codified in part and abrogated in part the holding in Price Waterhouse, see §§ 2000e-2(m), 2000e-5(g)(2)(B). The question the Court must answer here is whether that lessened causation standard is applicable to claims of unlawful employer retaliation under § 2000e-3(a). Although the Court has not addressed the question of the causation showing required to establish liability for a Title VII retaliation claim, it has addressed the issue of causation in general in a case involving employer discrimination under a separate but related statute, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. § 623. See Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., 557 U.S. 167, 129 S.Ct. 2343, 174 L.Ed.2d 119 (2009). In Gross, the Court concluded that the ADEA requires proof that the prohibited criterion was the but-for cause of the prohibited conduct. The holding and analysis of that decision are instructive here. I Petitioner, the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center (University), is an academic institution within the University of Texas system. The University specializes in medical education for aspiring physicians, health professionals, and scientists. Over the years, the University has affiliated itself with a number of healthcare facilities including, as relevant in this case, Parkland Memorial Hospital (Hospital). As provided in its affiliation agreement with the University, the Hospital permits the University's students to gain clinical experience working in its facilities. The agreement also requires the Hospital to offer empty staff physician posts to the University's faculty members, see App. 361-362, 366, and, accordingly, most of the staff physician positions at the Hospital are filled by those faculty members. Respondent is a medical doctor of Middle Eastern descent who specializes in internal medicine and infectious diseases. In 1995, he was hired to work both as a member of the University's faculty and a staff physician at the Hospital. He left both positions in 1998 for additional medical education and then returned in 2001 as an assistant professor at the University and, once again, as a physician at the Hospital. In 2004, Dr. Beth Levine was hired as the University's Chief of Infectious Disease Medicine. In that position Levine became respondent's ultimate (though not direct) superior. Respondent alleged that Levine was biased against him on account of his religion and ethnic heritage, a bias manifested by undeserved scrutiny of his billing practices and productivity, as well as comments that " 'Middle Easterners are lazy.' " 674 F.3d 448, 450 (C.A.5 2012). On different occasions during his employment, respondent met with Dr. Gregory Fitz, the University's Chair of Internal Medicine and Levine's supervisor, to complain about Levine's alleged harassment. Despite obtaining a promotion with Levine's assistance in 2006, respondent continued to believe that she was biased against him. So he tried to arrange to continue working at the Hospital without also being on the University's faculty. After preliminary negotiations with the Hospital suggested this might be possible, respondent resigned his teaching post in July 2006 and sent a letter to Dr. Fitz (among others), in which he stated that the reason for his departure was harassment by Levine. That harassment, he asserted, " 'stems from ... religious, racial and cultural bias against Arabs and Muslims.' " Id., at 451. After reading that letter, Dr. Fitz expressed consternation at respondent's accusations, saying that Levine had been "publicly humiliated by th[e] letter" and that it was "very important that she be publicly exonerated." App. 41. Meanwhile, the Hospital had offered respondent a job as a staff physician, as it had indicated it would. On learning of that offer, Dr. Fitz protested to the Hospital, asserting that the offer was inconsistent with the affiliation agreement's requirement that all staff physicians also be members of the University faculty. The Hospital then withdrew its offer. After exhausting his administrative remedies, respondent filed this Title VII suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. He alleged two discrete violations of Title VII. The first was a status-based discrimination claim under § 2000e-2(a). Respondent alleged that Dr. Levine's racially and religiously motivated harassment had resulted in his constructive discharge from the University. Respondent's second claim was that Dr. Fitz's efforts to prevent the Hospital from hiring him were in retaliation for complaining about Dr. Levine's harassment, in violation of § 2000e-3(a). 674 F.3d, at 452. The jury found for respondent on both claims. It awarded him over $400,000 in backpay and more than $3 million in compensatory damages. The District Court later reduced the compensatory damages award to $300,000. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part. The court first concluded that respondent had submitted insufficient evidence in support of his constructive-discharge claim, so it vacated that portion of the jury's verdict. The court affirmed as to the retaliation finding, however, on the theory that retaliation claims brought under § 2000e-3(a) -like claims of status-based discrimination under § 2000e-2(a) -require only a showing that retaliation was a motivating factor for the adverse employment action, rather than its but-for cause. See id., at 454, n. 16 (citing Smith v. Xerox Corp., 602 F.3d 320, 330 (C.A.5 2010) ). It further held that the evidence supported a finding that Dr. Fitz was motivated, at least in part, to retaliate against respondent for his complaints against Levine. The Court of Appeals then remanded for a redetermination of damages in light of its decision to vacate the constructive-discharge verdict. Four judges dissented from the court's decision not to rehear the case en banc, arguing that the Circuit's application of the motivating-factor standard to retaliation cases was "an erroneous interpretation of [Title VII] and controlling caselaw" and should be overruled en banc. 688 F.3d 211, 213-214 (C.A.5 2012) (Smith, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc). Certiorari was granted. 568 U.S. ----, 133 S.Ct. 978, 184 L.Ed.2d 758 (2013). II A This case requires the Court to define the proper standard of causation for Title VII retaliation claims. Causation in fact-i.e., proof that the defendant's conduct did in fact cause the plaintiff's injury-is a standard requirement of any tort claim, see Restatement of Torts § 9 (1934) (definition of "legal cause"); § 431, Comment a (same); § 279, and Comment c (intentional infliction of physical harm); § 280 (other intentional torts); § 281(c) (negligence). This includes federal statutory claims of workplace discrimination. Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604, 610, 113 S.Ct. 1701, 123 L.Ed.2d 338 (1993) (In intentional-discrimination cases, "liability depends on whether the protected trait" "actually motivated the employer's decision" and "had a determinative influence on the outcome"); Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power v. Manhart, 435 U.S. 702, 711, 98 S.Ct. 1370, 55 L.Ed.2d 657 (1978) (explaining that the "simple test" for determining a discriminatory employment practice is "whether the evidence shows treatment of a person in a manner which but for that person's sex would be different" (internal quotation marks omitted)). In the usual course, this standard requires the plaintiff to show "that the harm would not have occurred" in the absence of-that is, but for-the defendant's conduct. Restatement of Torts § 431, Comment a (negligence); § 432(1), and Comment a (same); see § 279, and Comment c (intentional infliction of bodily harm); § 280 (other intentional torts); Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm § 27, and Comment b (2010) (noting the existence of an exception for cases where an injured party can prove the existence of multiple, independently sufficient factual causes, but observing that "cases invoking the concept are rare"). See also Restatement (Second) of Torts § 432(1) (1963 and 1964) (negligence claims); § 870, Comment l (intentional injury to another); cf. § 435a, and Comment a (legal cause for intentional harm). It is thus textbook tort law that an action "is not regarded as a cause of an event if the particular event would have occurred without it." W. Keeton, D. Dobbs, R. Keeton, & D. Owen, Prosser and Keeton on Law of Torts 265 (5th ed. 1984). This, then, is the background against which Congress legislated in enacting Title VII, and these are the default rules it is presumed to have incorporated, absent an indication to the contrary in the statute itself. See Meyer v. Holley, 537 U.S. 280, 285, 123 S.Ct. 824, 154 L.Ed.2d 753 (2003) ; Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 257-258, 98 S.Ct. 1042, 55 L.Ed.2d 252 (1978). B Since the statute's passage in 1964, it has prohibited employers from discriminating against their employees on any of seven specified criteria. Five of them-race, color, religion, sex, and national origin-are personal characteristics and are set forth in § 2000e-2. (As noted at the outset, discrimination based on these five characteristics is called status-based discrimination in this opinion.) And then there is a point of great import for this case: The two remaining categories of wrongful employer conduct-the employee's opposition to employment discrimination, and the employee's submission of or support for a complaint that alleges employment discrimination-are not wrongs based on personal traits but rather types of protected employee conduct. These latter two categories are covered by a separate, subsequent section of Title VII, § 2000e-3(a). Under the status-based discrimination provision, it is an "unlawful employment practice" for an employer "to discriminate against any individual ... because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." § 2000e-2(a). In its 1989 decision in Price Waterhouse, the Court sought to explain the causation standard imposed by this language. It addressed in particular what it means for an action to be taken "because of" an individual's race, religion, or nationality. Although no opinion in that case commanded a majority, six Justices did agree that a plaintiff could prevail on a claim of status-based discrimination if he or she could show that one of the prohibited traits was a "motivating" or "substantial" factor in the employer's decision. 490 U.S., at 258, 109 S.Ct. 1775 (plurality opinion); id., at 259, 109 S.Ct. 1775 (White, J., concurring in judgment); id., at 276, 109 S.Ct. 1775 (O'Connor, J., concurring in judgment). If the plaintiff made that showing, the burden of persuasion would shift to the employer, which could escape liability if it could prove that it would have taken the same employment action in the absence of all discriminatory animus. Id., at 258, 109 S.Ct. 1775 (plurality opinion); id., at 259-260, 109 S.Ct. 1775 (opinion of White, J.); id., at 276-277, 109 S.Ct. 1775 (opinion of O'Connor, J.). In other words, the employer had to show that a discriminatory motive was not the but-for cause of the adverse employment action. Two years later, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (1991 Act), 105 Stat. 1071. This statute (which had many other provisions) codified the burden-shifting and lessened-causation framework of Price Waterhouse in part but also rejected it to a substantial degree. The legislation first added a new subsection to the end of § 2000e-2, i.e., Title VII's principal ban on status-based discrimination. See § 107(a), 105 Stat. 1075. The new provision, § 2000e-2(m), states: "[A]n unlawful employment practice is established when the complaining party demonstrates that race, color, religion, sex, or national origin was a motivating factor for any employment practice, even though other factors also motivated the practice." This, of course, is a lessened causation standard. The 1991 Act also abrogated a portion of Price Waterhouse 's framework by removing the employer's ability to defeat liability once a plaintiff proved the existence of an impermissible motivating factor. See Gross, 557 U.S., at 178, n. 5, 129 S.Ct. 2343. In its place, Congress enacted § 2000e-5(g)(2), which provides: "(B) On a claim in which an individual proves a violation under section 2000e-2(m) of this title and [the employer] demonstrates that [it] would have taken the same action in the absence of the impermissible motivating factor, the court- "(i) may grant declaratory relief, injunctive relief ... and [limited] attorney's fees and costs ...; and "(ii) shall not award damages or issue an order requiring any admission, reinstatement, hiring, promotion, or payment...." So, in short, the 1991 Act substituted a new burden-shifting framework for the one endorsed by Price Waterhouse . Under that new regime, a plaintiff could obtain declaratory relief, attorney's fees and costs, and some forms of injunctive relief based solely on proof that race, color, religion, sex, or nationality was a motivating factor in the employment action; but the employer's proof that it would still have taken the same employment action would save it from monetary damages and a reinstatement order. See Gross, 557 U.S., at 178, n. 5, 129 S.Ct. 2343; see also id., at 175, n. 2, 177, n. 3, 129 S.Ct. 2343. After Price Waterhouse and the 1991 Act, considerable time elapsed before the Court returned again to the meaning of "because" and the problem of causation. This time it arose in the context of a different, yet similar statute, the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. § 623(a). See Gross, supra . Much like the Title VII statute in Price Waterhouse, the relevant portion of the ADEA provided that " '[i]t shall be unlawful for an employer ... to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's age.' " 557 U.S., at 176, 129 S.Ct. 2343 (quoting § 623(a)(1) ; emphasis and ellipsis in original). Concentrating first and foremost on the meaning of the phrase " 'because of ... age,' " the Court in Gross explained that the ordinary meaning of " 'because of' " is " 'by reason of' " or " 'on account of.' " Id., at 176, 129 S.Ct. 2343 (citing 1 Webster's Third New International Dictionary 194 (1966); 1 Oxford English Dictionary 746 (1933); The Random House Dictionary of the English Language 132 (1966); emphasis in original). Thus, the "requirement that an employer took adverse action 'because of' age [meant] that age was the 'reason' that the employer decided to act," or, in other words, that "age was the 'but-for' cause of the employer's adverse decision." 557 U.S., at 176, 129 S.Ct. 2343. See also Safeco Ins. Co. of America v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47, 63-64, and n. 14, 127 S.Ct. 2201, 167 L.Ed.2d 1045 (2007) (noting that "because of" means "based on" and that " 'based on' indicates a but-for causal relationship"); Holmes v. Securities Investor Protection Corporation, 503 U.S. 258, 265-266, 112 S.Ct. 1311, 117 L.Ed.2d 532 (1992) (equating "by reason of" with " 'but for' cause"). In the course of approving this construction, Gross declined to adopt the interpretation endorsed by the plurality and concurring opinions in Price Waterhouse . Noting that "the ADEA must be 'read ... the way Congress wrote it,' " 557 U.S., at 179, 129 S.Ct. 2343 (quoting Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, 554 U.S. 84, 102, 128 S.Ct. 2395, 171 L.Ed.2d 283 (2008) ), the Court concluded that "the textual differences between Title VII and the ADEA" "prevent[ed] us from applying Price Waterhouse ... to federal age discrimination claims," 557 U.S., at 175, n. 2, 129 S.Ct. 2343. In particular, the Court stressed the congressional choice not to add a provision like § 2000e-2(m) to the ADEA despite making numerous other changes to the latter statute in the 1991 Act. Id., at 174-175, 129 S.Ct. 2343 (citing EEOC v. Arabian American Oil Co., 499 U.S. 244, 256, 111 S.Ct. 1227, 113 L.Ed.2d 274 (1991) ); 557 U.S., at 177, n. 3, 129 S.Ct. 2343 (citing 14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett, 556 U.S. 247, 270, 129 S.Ct. 1456, 173 L.Ed.2d 398 (2009) ). Finally, the Court in Gross held that it would not be proper to read Price Waterhouse as announcing a rule that applied to both statutes, despite their similar wording and near-contemporaneous enactment. 557 U.S., at 178, n. 5, 129 S.Ct. 2343. This different reading was necessary, the Court concluded, because Congress' 1991 amendments to Title VII