Katie Eyer

The But-For Theory of Anti-Discrimination Law

Discrimination law has long been in theoretical crisis. Its central theory—disparate treatment law—has no agreed-upon core principles. Because prevailing theories of discrimination once treated “disparate treatment” and “discriminatory intent” as coextensive—something we now know not to be true—it is unclear whether all “disparate treatment” is truly proscribed. In the absence of a clear commitment to proscribing all disparate treatment, judicial law-making has run amok. The result has been the development of a network of technical rules that have all but eclipsed the factual question of whether discrimination took place, and that have been devastating to discrimination plaintiffs’ success.

This Article contends that the time has come to resolve the theoretical crisis in anti-discrimination law. In a series of recent cases, the Supreme Court has situated the question of whether an individual or group would have fared differently “but for” their protected class status as the central defining question of anti-discrimination law. Moreover, the Court has suggested that this inquiry flows from anti-discrimination law’s plain text. As such, there are compelling arguments to be made that a true disparate treatment principle—the but-for principle—is the textually mandated inquiry in anti-discrimination law, and that judicial deviations from this standard are illegitimate.

This idea—that our anti-discrimination laws must reach all contexts where the outcome would be different “but for” the sex, race, or other protected class status of those affected—is simultaneously conservative in its aspirations and potentially radical in its legal effects. Such an approach comports with our often-stated commitment that all individuals in our society be given equal opportunities, and not be judged on the basis of their race, sex, or other protected class status. But anti-discrimination law has strayed far from these anti-disparate treatment principles—and thus taking such a commitment seriously would have truly significant effects. This Article thus suggests that reorienting our inquiry around the factual question of whether the outcome would be different “but for” protected class status is important to ensuring that anti-discrimination law can achieve its basic promises.

Introduction

Discrimination law has long been in theoretical crisis. Because its core theory—disparate treatment—was recognized at a time when “disparate treatment” and “intentional discrimination” were believed to be one and the same, anti-discrimination law’s foundational cases conflate the two.1 1.See, e.g., Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324, 335 & n.15, 382 (1977); see also infra notes 39–60 and accompanying text (discussing this issue in depth).Show More This has created a fundamental question as to disparate treatment law’s central theoretical principles. Does disparate treatment law in fact prohibit all “disparate treatment,” (i.e., all decisions in which the outcome would have been different “but for” race, sex, or other protected class status)? Or does it prohibit only the narrower category of “intentional discrimination” (i.e., decisions in which protected class status played a conscious role)?

These questions about anti-discrimination law’s core principles remain unanswered even today, with important adverse consequences for anti-discrimination law. In the absence of a clear commitment to barring “disparate treatment,” judicial law-making has run amok. Few judges even ask the question of whether a policy decision—or an employment action—would have turned out differently had the individual or group affected been white, male, or of a majority religion.2 2.See, e.g., Katie Eyer, The Return of the Technical McDonnell Douglas Paradigm, 94 Wash. L. Rev. 967, 1017 (2019). In the interest of brevity, I do not always list every protected group when giving examples of the “but for” principle. This is not intended to suggest the exclusion of other groups from the but-for principle, and, indeed, the application of the but-for principle would be the same across all of the various contexts in which groups have protections under statutory or constitutional anti-discrimination law.Show More Instead, across both constitutional and statutory law, convoluted doctrines result in the dismissal of the majority of anti-discrimination claims, whether or not “disparate treatment” (in the literal sense) has in fact occurred.3 3.See infranotes 61–71 and accompanying text; Sandra F. Sperino & Suja A. Thomas, Unequal: How America’s Courts Undermine Discrimination Law 13–14, 40–44, 158 (2017).Show More

This Article suggests that the time has come to address this theoretical crisis, and recenter anti-discrimination doctrine around what ought to be its core principles. As the very name of the doctrine suggests, “disparate treatment” law is supposed to be centrally concerned with differential treatment. This simple principle—that all groups and individuals have a right to receive the same treatment at the hands of government, employers, and others, regardless of race, sex, or other protected class status—is central to what anti-discrimination law is supposed to do. If our “anti-discrimination” principles regularly absolve defendants of liability where groups or individuals in fact would have been treated better if they were white, or men, or non-disabled, then anti-discrimination law is not worthy of its name.

While addressing anti-discrimination law’s theoretical crisis has long been urgent, it has recently become far more plausible. Across a series of recent cases, the Supreme Court has articulated the view that anti-discrimination’s law’s central defining principle is what I refer to in this Article as the “but-for principle.”4 4.Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., 557 U.S. 167, 180 (2009) (Age Discrimination in Employment Act claim); see, e.g., Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338, 362 (2013) (Title VII retaliation claim); Comcast Corp. v. Nat’l Ass’n of Afr. Am.-Owned Media, 140 S. Ct. 1009, 1018–19 (2020) (42 U.S.C. § 1981 claim); Bostock v. Clayton Cnty., 140 S. Ct. 1731, 1739–40 (2020) (Title VII sex discrimination claim); see also City of L.A. Dep’t of Water & Power v. Manhart, 435 U.S. 702, 711 (1978) (same); McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transp. Co., 427 U.S. 273, 282 n.10 (1976) (Title VII race discrimination claim).Show More Thus, the Court has embraced the view that where the outcome would be different “but for” the protected class status of those affected, anti-discrimination law is violated.5 5.See sources cited supra note 4.Show More This is of course simply another way of saying that disparate treatment (in its literal, not technical, sense) is proscribed. As such, the Court’s recent cases offer renewed opportunities to suggest that anti-discrimination law must be centered on a true “disparate treatment” theory, which would mandate liability wherever differential treatment occurs (i.e., wherever the outcome would be different “but for” protected class status).

Importantly, the Court has situated its reasoning in these cases as founded on the “plain meaning” of anti-discrimination law’s statutory text.6 6.Bostock, 140 S. Ct. at 1743, 1750.Show More As such, they offer an unusual opportunity to argue that a true disparate treatment principle not only resides at the core of anti-discrimination law but also in its plain textual meaning. In a Supreme Court where textualism is the ascendant method of statutory interpretation, this makes it uniquely plausible to claim that a commitment to proscribing all actual differential treatment is not only the preferred theory of disparate treatment law but (at least for statutory anti-discrimination law) the textually mandated one. And because disparate treatment doctrine has typically been construed comparably across the constitutional and statutory domains,7 7.See, e.g., Richard Primus, The Future of Disparate Impact, 108 Mich. L. Rev. 1341, 1354–55 (2010). Importantly, no textual barriers would exist to such an interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause, which is fully consistent textually with the but-for principle. SeeU.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1 (“No state shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”).The one major difference between disparate treatment principles in the constitutional context and in most statutory contexts has traditionally been that the Constitution permits the government to show they had a sufficient “interest” to justify the discrimination. This Article addresses only the initial threshold inquiry into whether there was discrimination—and if so, of what kind—and does not address the ability of the government to justify the discrimination based on the government’s interests.Show More such a move could have profound impacts in the constitutional domain as well. As such, the current moment offers unique opportunities for resolving the theoretical crisis at the heart of anti-discrimination law and for addressing the many doctrinal pathologies that have arisen out of it.

Ironically, if there is one major obstacle to harnessing this recent turn in the Supreme Court’s case law toward a true disparate treatment paradigm, it may be those who are, in theory, most committed to building a meaningful body of anti-discrimination law. Many anti-discrimination scholars and advocates have critiqued the but-for principle—and indeed at times disparate treatment law in general—perceiving it as a weak substitute for preferred theories of anti-discrimination law, such as disparate impact and motivating factor liability.8 8.Indeed, in 2013, this Author joined a brief arguing against the but-for principle and in favor of a motivating factor standard. See Brief of Employment Law Professors as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondent at 5, app. 3, Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338 (2013) (No. 12-484).Show More This longstanding opposition to the but-for principle may make anti-discrimination scholars and advocates reluctant to draw on these cases and accompanying theoretical principles, regardless of their potential.

But this Article suggests that the increased risks of embracing the but-for principle are slight—and that the opportunity costs of not doing so are considerable. The opportunity to recenter disparate treatment law around what should be its core theoretical commitment is not one we ought to take lightly. Without such a core theoretical commitment, we can expect to continue to see an anti-discrimination law without any central rudder, overrun by judge-made doctrines, and highly susceptible to individual judicial biases.9 9.See generally Sperino & Thomas, supra note 3, at 58–83 (describing in detail the judge-made doctrines that the courts use to routinely dismiss discrimination claims); Katie Eyer, That’s Not Discrimination: American Beliefs and the Limits of Anti-Discrimination Law, 96 Minn. L. Rev. 1275, 1276 (2012) (noting that dismissals on summary judgment and motions to dismiss are “extremely common in discrimination litigation, accounting for a full 86% of litigated outcomes”).Show More Punitive or harmful government policies that would not have been adopted “but for” the (minority) race of those affected will continue to proliferate and go unremedied.10 10.See, e.g., Petula Dvorak, We Scorned Addicts When They Were Black. It Is Different Now That They Are White, Wash. Post (Apr. 12, 2018), https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/we-hated-addicts-when-they-were-black-it-is-different-now-that-they-are-white/2018/04/12/cd845f20-3e5b-11e8-974f-aacd97698cef_story.html [https://perma.cc/E49E-ZSGX].Show More Employment decisions that treat women, minorities and members of the LGBTQ community more harshly than those who are men, white, cisgender and straight will continue to be evaluated—and often dismissed—under a network of doctrines that bear little relationship to whether differential treatment occurred.11 11.See Sperino & Thomas, supra note 3, at 1–4.Show More

In contrast, an embrace of the but-for principle—and centering it as anti-discrimination law’s core commitment—offers myriad concrete opportunities to argue for a more sensible and elegant approach to anti-discrimination law. Under the but-for principle, our foundational inquiry ought to be a simple and factual one: would the outcome have been different “but for” the race, sex, or other protected class status of those adversely affected? While in many cases answering this factual question may be difficult—just as it is in, for example, tort claims—the procedure for doing so is straightforward. The fact finder (jury or judge) ought to consider all of the relevant evidence and consider whether it appears, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a different outcome would have resulted had the protected class status of those affected been different. For example, would the Voter ID law have been passed, if those it had been likely to disenfranchise were overwhelmingly white? Or would a man have been assumed to be uncommitted to work—and thus denied a promotion—simply because he had small kids?

Centering this approach has the potential to address many of the pathologies that currently plague both statutory and constitutional anti-discrimination law. The search for a particular individual bad actor (or actors) becomes far less relevant if the but-for principle is the central defining principle of disparate treatment doctrine since the question can be asked without defining the precise role of particular individuals in producing the discriminatory action.12 12.Cf. McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279, 293–95 (1987) (rejecting Equal Protection claim in part on the grounds that statistical study could not identify the actors who engaged in discrimination).Show More So too, the search for a strong form of self-aware conscious intent should not be dispositive if our central focus is on whether the outcome would have been different “but for” the protected class of those affected. Self-aware intent certainly may be helpful in proving “but for” causation, but it is only one of many ways that but-for causation can be shown.13 13.Cf. Linda Hamilton Krieger & Susan T. Fiske, Behavioral Realism in Employment Discrimination Law: Implicit Bias and Disparate Treatment, 94 Calif. L. Rev. 997, 1029–38 (2006) (describing aspects of disparate treatment doctrine that assume the existence of a self-aware discriminatory actor).Show More Finally, widespread recognition of the but-for principle as the central defining feature of disparate treatment doctrine would provide an opportunity to address the myriad technical doctrines that currently result in the dismissal of numerous statutory anti-discrimination claims, without ever asking the core question of whether discrimination took place.14 14.See generally Sperino & Thomas, supra note 3 passim (detailing such doctrines and their impact on anti-discrimination litigants); Eyer, supra note 9, at 1276 (noting that dismissals of plaintiffs’ claims at motions to dismiss and summary judgment account for 86% of litigated outcomes in discrimination cases); Eyer, supra note 2, 969–72 (describing the ways in which technical rules attached to the McDonnell Douglas paradigm are used to dismiss anti-discrimination claims).Show More

In addition to providing the opportunity to address many of anti-discrimination law’s pathologies, the but-for principle could also provide a stronger foundation for many of anti-discrimination law’s equality-promoting doctrines and scholarly ideas. As the case of Bostock v. Clayton County demonstrates, the stereotyping principle—long critiqued by some for its lack of statutory foundation15 15.See, e.g., Hamm v. Weyauwega Milk Prods., 332 F.3d 1058, 1066–67 (7th Cir. 2003) (Posner, J., concurring).Show More—can be situated comfortably within the but-for principle, offering it renewed vigor and promise.16 16.See, e.g., Bostock v. Clayton Cnty., 140 S. Ct. 1731, 1741, 1748–49 (2020).Show More Similarly, the theory of “negligent discrimination”—long argued for by some anti-discrimination scholars17 17.See infra notes 226–29 and accompanying text.Show More—becomes largely unnecessary under a but-for discrimination regime.18 18.See infra Section IV.B.Show More A true but-for standard would also effectuate many—though certainly not all—goals of other equality-promoting doctrines, such as motivating factor and disparate impact.19 19.See infra Part IV.Show More

As such, there are many potential benefits to embracing the but-for principle as the theoretical core of disparate treatment doctrine and relatively few genuine drawbacks. Indeed, many of the sources of opposition have rested on misconceptions about what “but for” demands or permits (including, for example, misconceptions that a but-for standard effectively requires a showing that protected class status was the sole cause of the defendant’s actions).20 20.See infra Part V.Show More Other sources of opposition have rested on fears that the but-for principle (or other anti-classificationist approaches) would endanger minority-protective doctrines such as affirmative action.21 21.See infra Subsection V.A.2.Show More But as this Article demonstrates, much of what anti-discrimination scholars and advocates hope to accomplish through alternatives to the but-for principle can be achieved through the embrace of the principle—and much of what they hope to avoid has already come to pass.22 22.Id.Show More

The time has come to resolve the theoretical crisis in anti-discrimination law. This Article takes up that work. The Parts that follow describe the theoretical crisis at the heart of anti-discrimination law, develop arguments for how it may be resolved, and suggest what the benefits of such a resolution might be. But before proceeding to this substantive discussion, it is important to note the role of terminology in both generating—and ultimately solving—anti-discrimination law’s theoretical crisis. For too long we have conflated two concepts—“disparate treatment” and “intentional discrimination”—and we ought not to do so going forward. Thus, in this Article, when I use the term “disparate treatment,” I mean a true disparate treatment standard—that the outcome would have been different “but for” the protected class of those affected. When I refer to “intentional discrimination,” I mean to describe the narrower class of disparate treatment that is perpetrated with discriminatory intent.23 23.Though there may be some theoretical possibility of distinguishing between “intent,” “purpose,” and “motive,” (and any number of scholars have attempted to do so) I follow the convention of the Supreme Court herein, which is to use those terms interchangeably. See Katie Eyer, Ideological Drift and the Forgotten History of Intent, 51 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 1, 56 n.318 (2016).Show More Both of these standards are distinct from a “disparate impact” standard, which asks whether the burdens of a policy or practice fall more heavily on a particular group, but in a context where disparate treatment need not be present.24 24.42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(k).Show More

The remainder of this Article proceeds as follows. Part I makes the case that anti-discrimination law is in conceptual crisis, describes the origins of this crisis, and details the ways that this theoretical crisis has led to serious pathologies in contemporary anti-discrimination law. Part II turns to the set of recent cases in which the Supreme Court has described the but-for principle—a true disparate treatment principle—as the central defining feature of anti-discrimination law and describes the potential of such cases for resolving anti-discrimination law’s theoretical crisis. Part III illustrates what a factual, but-for-centered inquiry might look like in an individual case and describes the radical systematic potential of arguing that this simple factual inquiry must control. Part IV describes how many of the objectives of the equality-promoting doctrines that anti-discrimination scholars and advocates have favored can be effectuated by turning to a true disparate treatment inquiry, via the but-for principle. Finally, Part V addresses likely headwinds to a project of recentering anti-discrimination law around the but-for principle, including potential progressive objections to such a project, potential legal obstacles, and judicial attitudes that may pose a barrier to reform.

  1. * Many thanks to Michael Carrier, Jessica Clarke, Tristin Green, Guha Krishnamurthi, Alexandra Lahav, Shannon Minter, Zalman Rothschild, D’Andra Shu, Joseph Singer, Sandra Sperino, Michael Selmi, Brian Soucek, Charles Sullivan, and Deb Widiss for helpful conversations and feedback regarding this project, and to the editors of the Virginia Law Review for excellent editorial suggestions. Special thanks are owed to Jessica Clarke, Sandra Sperino, and Deb Widiss for extensive feedback. This Article was presented at the 15th Annual Colloquium on Labor and Employment Law (“COSELL”) and at the Association of American Law Schools 2021 Meeting and received excellent feedback from participants. ↑
  2. See, e.g., Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324, 335 & n.15, 382 (1977); see also infra notes 39–60 and accompanying text (discussing this issue in depth). ↑
  3. See, e.g., Katie Eyer, The Return of the Technical McDonnell Douglas Paradigm, 94 Wash. L. Rev. 967, 1017 (2019). In the interest of brevity, I do not always list every protected group when giving examples of the “but for” principle. This is not intended to suggest the exclusion of other groups from the but-for principle, and, indeed, the application of the but-for principle would be the same across all of the various contexts in which groups have protections under statutory or constitutional anti-discrimination law. ↑
  4. See infra notes 61–71 and accompanying text; Sandra F. Sperino & Suja A. Thomas, Unequal: How America’s Courts Undermine Discrimination Law 13–14, 40–44, 158 (2017). ↑
  5. Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., 557 U.S. 167, 180 (2009) (Age Discrimination in Employment Act claim); see, e.g., Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338, 362 (2013) (Title VII retaliation claim); Comcast Corp. v. Nat’l Ass’n of Afr. Am.-Owned Media, 140 S. Ct. 1009, 1018–19 (2020) (42 U.S.C. § 1981 claim); Bostock v. Clayton Cnty., 140 S. Ct. 1731, 1739–40 (2020) (Title VII sex discrimination claim); see also City of L.A. Dep’t of Water & Power v. Manhart, 435 U.S. 702, 711 (1978) (same); McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transp. Co., 427 U.S. 273, 282 n.10 (1976) (Title VII race discrimination claim). ↑
  6. See sources cited supra note 4. ↑
  7. Bostock, 140 S. Ct. at 1743, 1750. ↑
  8. See, e.g., Richard Primus, The Future of Disparate Impact, 108 Mich. L. Rev. 1341, 1354–55 (2010). Importantly, no textual barriers would exist to such an interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause, which is fully consistent textually with the but-for principle. See
    U.S.

    Const. amend. XIV, § 1 (“No state shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”). The one major difference between disparate treatment principles in the constitutional context and in most statutory contexts has traditionally been that the Constitution permits the government to show they had a sufficient “interest” to justify the discrimination. This Article addresses only the initial threshold inquiry into whether there was discrimination—and if so, of what kind—and does not address the ability of the government to justify the discrimination based on the government’s interests. ↑

  9. Indeed, in 2013, this Author joined a brief arguing against the but-for principle and in favor of a motivating factor standard. See Brief of Employment Law Professors as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondent at 5, app. 3, Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338 (2013) (No. 12-484). ↑
  10. See generally Sperino & Thomas, supra note 3, at 58–83 (describing in detail the judge-made doctrines that the courts use to routinely dismiss discrimination claims); Katie Eyer, That’s Not Discrimination: American Beliefs and the Limits of Anti-Discrimination Law, 96 Minn. L. Rev. 1275, 1276 (2012) (noting that dismissals on summary judgment and motions to dismiss are “extremely common in discrimination litigation, accounting for a full 86% of litigated outcomes”). ↑
  11. See, e.g., Petula Dvorak, We Scorned Addicts When They Were Black. It Is Different Now That They Are White, Wash. Post (Apr. 12, 2018), https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/we-hated-addicts-when-they-were-black-it-is-different-now-that-they-are-white/2018/04/12/cd845f20-3e5b-11e8-974f-aacd97698cef_story.html [https://perma.cc/E49E-ZSGX]. ↑
  12. See Sperino & Thomas, supra note 3, at 1–4. ↑
  13. Cf. McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279, 293–95 (1987) (rejecting Equal Protection claim in part on the grounds that statistical study could not identify the actors who engaged in discrimination). ↑
  14. Cf. Linda Hamilton Krieger & Susan T. Fiske, Behavioral Realism in Employment Discrimination Law: Implicit Bias and Disparate Treatment, 94 Calif. L. Rev. 997, 1029–38 (2006) (describing aspects of disparate treatment doctrine that assume the existence of a self-aware discriminatory actor). ↑
  15. See generally Sperino & Thomas, supra note 3 passim (detailing such doctrines and their impact on anti-discrimination litigants); Eyer, supra note 9, at 1276 (noting that dismissals of plaintiffs’ claims at motions to dismiss and summary judgment account for 86% of litigated outcomes in discrimination cases); Eyer, supra note 2, 969–72 (describing the ways in which technical rules attached to the McDonnell Douglas paradigm are used to dismiss anti-discrimination claims). ↑
  16. See, e.g., Hamm v. Weyauwega Milk Prods., 332 F.3d 1058, 1066–67 (7th Cir. 2003) (Posner, J., concurring). ↑
  17. See, e.g., Bostock v. Clayton Cnty., 140 S. Ct. 1731, 1741, 1748–49 (2020). ↑
  18. See infra notes 226–29 and accompanying text. ↑
  19. See infra Section IV.B. ↑
  20. See infra Part IV. ↑
  21. See infra Part V. ↑
  22. See infra Subsection V.A.2. ↑
  23. Id. ↑
  24. Though there may be some theoretical possibility of distinguishing between “intent,” “purpose,” and “motive,” (and any number of scholars have attempted to do so) I follow the convention of the Supreme Court herein, which is to use those terms interchangeably. See Katie Eyer, Ideological Drift and the Forgotten History of Intent, 51 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 1, 56 n.318 (2016). ↑

  25. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(k). ↑

©Virginia Law Review Association. All rights reserved.