{"id":599,"date":"2019-10-21T12:38:00","date_gmt":"2019-10-21T22:38:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.skyloft.dev\/hosted-clients\/esandalaw\/?p=599"},"modified":"2022-06-05T12:38:50","modified_gmt":"2022-06-05T22:38:50","slug":"ninth-circuit-rules-ada-discrimination-claims-must-follow-but-for-causation-standard","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.skyloft.dev\/hosted-clients\/esandalaw\/news-and-information\/ninth-circuit-rules-ada-discrimination-claims-must-follow-but-for-causation-standard\/","title":{"rendered":"Ninth Circuit Rules ADA Discrimination Claims Must Follow But-For Causation Standard"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently ruled that in Americans With Disabilities (ADA) discrimination claims, the \u201cbut-for\u201d standard of causation applies. Plaintiffs must show that the adverse employment action would not have occurred without the disability; identifying the disability as a motivating factor of the adverse action is insufficient. The appellee in this case had cited a 2005 Ninth Circuit decision which held that discrimination claims should be evaluated under a motivating factor causation standard. However, the court found that the 2005 decision was abrogated by subsequent Supreme Court opinions that established the but-for standard of causation, and which were upheld by similar rulings in the Second, Fourth and Seventh Circuits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The case is&nbsp;<a href=\"http:\/\/cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov\/datastore\/opinions\/2019\/08\/20\/17-16803.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Murray v. Mayo Clinic<\/a>, in the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, No. 17-16803, filed August 20, 2019.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently ruled that in Americans With Disabilities (ADA) discrimination claims, the \u201cbut-for\u201d standard of causation applies. Plaintiffs must show that the adverse employment action would not have occurred without the disability; identifying the disability as a motivating factor of the adverse action is insufficient. The appellee [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5,1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.skyloft.dev\/hosted-clients\/esandalaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/599"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.skyloft.dev\/hosted-clients\/esandalaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.skyloft.dev\/hosted-clients\/esandalaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.skyloft.dev\/hosted-clients\/esandalaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.skyloft.dev\/hosted-clients\/esandalaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=599"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.skyloft.dev\/hosted-clients\/esandalaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/599\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":600,"href":"https:\/\/www.skyloft.dev\/hosted-clients\/esandalaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/599\/revisions\/600"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.skyloft.dev\/hosted-clients\/esandalaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=599"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.skyloft.dev\/hosted-clients\/esandalaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=599"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.skyloft.dev\/hosted-clients\/esandalaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=599"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}