{"id":"LAW-012","kind":"law","level":"law","jurisdiction":"","state":"","metro":"","industry":"","agency":"","eco":"","issuer":"Supreme Court of the United States","authority":"Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. 644 (2020) (slip opinion)","instrument":"Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. 644 (2020) (slip opinion)","title":"Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. 644 (2020) (slip opinion)","dateIssued":"2020-06-15","effective":"","end":"","startDate":"2020-06-15","endDate":"","quarters":[],"types":[],"addressees":[],"clause":"In the language of law, this means that Title VII\u0027s \u0022because of\u0022 test incorporates the \u0022simple\u0022 and \u0022traditional\u0022 standard of but-for causation. Nassar, 570 U. S., at 346, 360. That form of causation is established whenever a particular outcome would not have happened \u0022but for\u0022 the purported cause. See Gross, 557 U. S., at 176. In other words, a but-for test directs us to change one thing at a time and see if the outcome changes. If it does, we have found a but-for cause. This can be a sweeping standard. Often, events have multiple but-for causes.","enforcement":"","functions":[],"notes":"24 MB PDF.","sourceUrl":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf","snapshot":"","fileExists":true,"fileBytes":24435683,"grade":"primary","character":"case","description":"","collection":"LEG-A","url":"/library/LAW-012","exhibitUrl":"/exhibit/LAW-012","citation":"Supreme Court of the United States, Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. 644 (2020) (slip opinion) (June 15, 2020) (Ex. LAW-012)","stateName":"","related":[]}