Court Opinion

ID: 9476397
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 05:55:05.489269+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:45:17.852664
License: Public Domain

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
In its petition for rehearing, appellant contends that our statement that “Dominic ... bore the ultimate burden of persuading the jury that ‘a retaliatory motive play[ed] apartinthe adverse employment actions,’ ” at 1254 (quoting Davis v. State Univ. of New York, 802 F.2d 638, 642 (2d Cir. 1986)), erroneously weakened the applicable test of “but for” causation, which was properly charged to the jury in the instant case. We disagree. “A retaliatory motive ‘plays a part’ in an adverse employment decision only when it is causally connected to the adverse action or, in the language of McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transp. Co., 427 U.S. 273, 282 n. 10, 96 S.Ct. 2574, 2580 n. 10, 49 L.Ed.2d 493 (1976)], when it is the ‘but for’ cause of the adverse action.” Davis, 802 F.2d at 645 (Newman, J., concurring).
The petition for rehearing is accordingly denied.