As the Supreme Court considers yet another retaliation case, companies should again be reminded of the continued prevalence--and relative success--of such claims by employees, as well as their obligation as employers to protect workers against the retaliatory acts of managers.

In the case, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, the justices are reviewing whether the retaliation provision of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act imposes a "but-for" standard of proof on plaintiffs, i.e., whether a plaintiff is required to prove that he was subjected to an adverse employment action because of the employer's intent to retaliate for the employee's prior protected activity.

The plaintiff in the case argues, with the support of the Justice Department, that retaliation also may be proved with evidence that a retaliatory motive played a role in the challenged employment decision, i.e., that the employer acted with a mixed motive, part of which was not necessarily unlawful under Title VII, but part of which was.

Nassar is just the latest in a growing line of retaliation cases to be taken up by the justices, highlighting the significance of such claims for employers and employees. Within the past seven years, the court has:

• held that--judged by a "reasonable employee" standard--Title VII forbids employers from discriminating against employees or job applicants for opposing any practice made unlawful by the statute, or for filing a charge or testifying, assisting, or participating in a Title VII proceeding or investigation;

• decided that the opposition clause of Title VII's retaliation provision extends to a worker's reply to an employer's inquiry;

• ruled that the absence of an explicit anti-retaliation clause in the federal sector provisions of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act does not preclude a claim of retaliation by a federal employee under the ADEA;

• held that the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (42 U.S.C. § 1981) provides protection against employer retaliation even though the statute does not contain an express retaliation provision; and

• found that Title VII gives rise to a third-party retaliation claim.

In addition, the lower courts continue to grapple with the scope of the retaliation prohibition under federal anti-discrimination law, including by interpreting the high court's recent decisions. For example, just last week the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit declined to extend the justices' third-party retaliation holding to a state worker who claimed a Title VII violation when he was discharged a month after his wife settled her employment discrimination claims against a different state agency.

Other recent EEO developments include:

• A bipartisan coalition of lawmakers reintroduced the Employment Non-Discrimination Act in the House and the Senate.

• The Senate confirmed Jenny R. Yang (D) as a member of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

• The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the Merit Systems Protection Board properly found it did not have jurisdiction to review a former Department of the Navy employee's claims that she was forced to retire because of her age and sex.

• The Colorado Court of Appeals decided that Dish Network did not violate a state law protecting employees from discrimination for lawful, off-duty activities when it fired a quadriplegic for medical marijuana use.