University of Tex. Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar’s Empirical Analysis
570 U.S. 338 · 2013
Citation profile
29 federal appellate · 32 district · 28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 311 later decisions (12 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2025 · most notably Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu (2018)
29 federal appellate · 32 district · 28 state decisions — followed in 15 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 20 U.S.C. § 1681 (§ 901 of the Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972) · 29 U.S.C. § 623 (§ 4 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 29 U.S.C. § 626 (§ 7 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 29 U.S.C. § 633A (§ 15 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 42 U.S.C. § 12112 (§ 102 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 12203 (§ 503 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 1981A
Relies on Skidmore v. Swift & Co. · Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White · National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. Morgan · Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins · Carey v. Piphus
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 311 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“that the harm would not have occurred in the absence of-that is, but for-the defendant's conduct.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Given the lack of any meaningful textual difference between the text in this statute and the one in Gross , the proper conclusion here, as in Gross , is that Title VII retaliation claims require proof that the desire to retaliate was the but-for cause of the challenged employment action.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“an employer took adverse action because of age meant that age was the reason that the employer decided to act, or, in other words, that age was the but-for cause of the employer's decision.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.