Opinion ID: 791581
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The District Court's Articulated Standard for the Retaliation Claims

Text: 103 Finally, Davis asserts that the District Court committed reversible error in adjudicating his retaliation claims by requiring him to show that discrimination was a determinative factor rather than applying a substantial factor test. 20
104 Although Davis' counsel expressed his view during a sidebar conference that the substantial factor test was the correct one to apply in a retaliation claim, it appears that counsel did not object to the inclusion of determinative factor in the jury verdict sheet. Therefore, we review the court's selection of the standard for plain error. Osei-Afriyie v. Med. Coll. of Pa., 937 F.2d 876, 881 (3d Cir.1991).
105 We find no error, let alone a plain error, in the District Court's determinative factor instruction. See Watson v. SEPTA, 207 F.3d 207, 215 (3d Cir.2000) (applying a determinative factor analysis to a Title VII retaliation claim); Donofry, 795 A.2d at 271 (To prove a CEPA claim, the plaintiff must show that the retaliatory discrimination was more likely than not a determinative factor in the decision. (internal quotations omitted) (emphasis added)).