The 1991 Civil Rights Act provides that a plaintiff can establish liability under Title VII for disparate treatment discrimination by showing an unlawful reason was ?a motivating factor? in the defendant?s adverse employment action. ?In Gross v. FBL, the Court held 5-4 that ADEA disparate treatment claims require proof of ?but-for? causation and that the mixed motives paradigm set forth in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins does not apply.? ?The question in this case is what standard governs retaliation claims under Title VII. ?The 1991 Civil Rights ?Act ?did ?not ?specifically? address ?those claims.

University of Texas Southwestern Medical School v. Nassar, 113 S. Ct. 978 (2013).