{"id":"LAW-077","kind":"law","level":"law","jurisdiction":"","state":"","metro":"","industry":"","agency":"","eco":"","issuer":"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit","authority":"Thomas v. CalPortland Co., 993 F.3d 1204 (9th Cir. 2021) (slip opinion No. 20-70541)","instrument":"Thomas v. CalPortland Co., 993 F.3d 1204 (9th Cir. 2021) (slip opinion No. 20-70541)","title":"Thomas v. CalPortland Co., 993 F.3d 1204 (9th Cir. 2021) (slip opinion No. 20-70541)","dateIssued":"2021-04-14","effective":"","end":"","startDate":"2021-04-14","endDate":"","quarters":[],"types":[],"addressees":[],"clause":"The panel held that Section 105(c)\u0027s unambiguous text required a miner asserting a discrimination claim to prove but-for causation. (summary)... both parties urged us to construe the word \u0022because\u0022 in Section 105(c) to mean \u0022but-for\u0022 causation... Citing Burrage, Nassar, Gross, and Bostock, the parties claimed that the Pasula-Robinette standard conflicts with the Court\u0027s instruction that the ordinary meaning of \u0022because\u0022 incorporates the \u0022simple and traditional standard of but-for causation.\u0022","enforcement":"","functions":[],"notes":"","sourceUrl":"https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/04/14/20-70541.pdf","snapshot":"","fileExists":true,"fileBytes":212166,"grade":"primary","character":"case","description":"","collection":"LEG-A","url":"/library/LAW-077","exhibitUrl":"/exhibit/LAW-077","citation":"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Thomas v. CalPortland Co., 993 F.3d 1204 (9th Cir. 2021) (slip opinion No. 20-70541) (Apr. 14, 2021) (Ex. LAW-077)","stateName":"","related":[]}