Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): of Concern related to time and attendance. Def.’s Statement Fact ¶ 122. Ms. Britt’s effort to portray Ms. Wilson as possessing an anti-Muslim animus fails. Ms. Britt does not allege that Ms. Wilson expressed her anti-Muslim animus in any other way beyond allegedly denying her Ramadan accommodation. Contrary to Ms. Britt’s assertions, the record evidence shows that Ms. Wilson exercised her discretion, against the advice of HR, to accommodate Ms. Britt’s request for modified hours during Ramadan. As such, Ms. Britt has failed to identify facts sufficient for a reasonable juror to conclude that Ms. Wilson’s desire to retaliate against Ms. Britt was the “but for” cause of Ms. Britt’s termination. Univ. of Texas Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, — U.S.-, 133 S.Ct. 2517, 2533, 186 L.Ed.2d 503 (2013) (<HOLDING>). b. Mis. Trask’s July 19, 2012 email summary 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that there is nothing to indicate that the principle of employer responsibility does not extend equally to other title vii claims such as a claim of unlawful retaliation (B) holding that title vii retaliation claims must be proved according to traditional principles of butfor causation which requires proof that the unlawful retaliation would not have occurred in the absence of the alleged wrongful action or actions of the employer (C) holding that discrimination and retaliation claims are considered distinct types of claims that must be raised independently if the retaliation occurred prior to the filing of the administrative charge (D) holding that the court finds more persuasive the decisions of the circuit courts which reject reading a thirdparty retaliation cause of action into title vii but ultimately finding that the participation prong of title vii is potentially broad enough to encompass retaliation against third parties in the circumstances alleged in the instant case (E) holding that title vii retaliation claims require proof that the desire to retaliate was the butfor cause of the challenged employment action
Output (English): holding that title vii retaliation claims require proof that the desire to retaliate was the butfor cause of the challenged employment action