First Circuit Holds that But-For Causation is Required to Prove ADA/Rehab Act Violation

Joining the Sixth Circuit's recent en banc decision in Lewis v. Humboldt Acquisition, the First Circuit last week held, in Palmquist v. Shinseki, that the Price-Waterhouse mixed-motives analysis is not available to ADA and Rehabilitation Act plaintiffs.  Rather, according to the Lewis and Palmquist courts, plaintiffs in these cases must prove that their protected act or status was the but-for cause of the adverse employment action.  Both cases applied the Supreme Court's decision in  Gross v. FBL Financial Services, which held that plaintiffs suing under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act must prove but-for causation.