Overturning its own longstanding precedent regarding the proper standard of proof applicable to claims of discrimination brought under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled that to prevail on an ADA discrimination claim, a plaintiff must prove that his or her disability (whether actual or perceived) was the “but-for” cause of, not simply a motivating factor in, the complained-of employment decision.
The court’s decision in Murray v. Mayo Clinic, No. 17-16803 (9th Cir. August 20, 2019), concludes that its previous holdings regarding the proper standard of proof were no longer valid in light of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Gross v. FBL Financial Services and University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar – which applied the but-for proof standard to discrimination claims brought under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and the anti-retaliation provision of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), respectively.
In so ruling, the Ninth Circuit now joins the Second, Fourth, Sixth, and Seventh Circuits in applying the High Court’s rationale in Gross and Nassar to the ADA context. We are not aware of any appeals court rulings going the other way.
A copy of the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Murray v. Mayo Clinic is available here.
Members of the Center for Workplace Compliance (CWC) can read more here.