Search form

Supreme Court: Direct Evidence of Discrimination Not Needed for Liability in Mixed Motive Discharge

  • June 9, 2003

The U. S. Supreme Court ruled today that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not require an individual to show direct evidence of sex discrimination when seeking damages for discriminatory discharge if the employer had a "mixed motive" for the termination. Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa. (.PDF file/248 KB/15 pgs.)

The language of Title VII is clear, the Court said in an unanimous opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas. There is no such statutory requirement in Title VII as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991. In a lawsuit seeking damages for discriminatory discharge where the employer has shown a mixed motive for the termination, a plaintiff does not need to show direct evidence of discrimination. Circumstantial evidence of discriminatory motive is sufficient, as has been recognized in a number of the Court's decisions involving burdens of proof in Title VII litigation. There is no additional requirement of direct evidence in a case involving an employer's mixed motives for the conduct at issue, the Court concluded.

This decision settles an important procedural and substantive conflict of opinion among the federal appeals courts, where four of the circuit courts had required the plaintiff to show direct evidence in mixed motive cases. Now, in all jurisdictions, the risk of exposure for employers may be greater, since circumstantial evidence may suffice to find liability. Practically speaking, the effect may be that personnel actions should be given even greater scrutiny to assure they do not expose the employer to an unnecessary or inadvertent risk.

©2003 Jackson Lewis P.C. This material is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice nor does it create a client-lawyer relationship between Jackson Lewis and any recipient. Recipients should consult with counsel before taking any actions based on the information contained within this material. This material may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Reproduction of this material in whole or in part is prohibited without the express prior written consent of Jackson Lewis P.C., a law firm that built its reputation on providing workplace law representation to management. Founded in 1958, the firm has grown to more than 900 attorneys in major cities nationwide serving clients across a wide range of practices and industries including government relations, healthcare and sports law. More information about Jackson Lewis can be found at www.jacksonlewis.com.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

May 15, 2019

EPLI Trends, Sexual Harassment Claims, and Planning for 2019

May 15, 2019

As workplace laws continue to evolve, the potential risk exposure is increasing. Jackson Lewis prepared this trends overview to help assess the current workplace law landscape in the #MeToo era and the wave of agency charges, latest claims, and new laws.  Highlights include: Pay Equity Lawsuits: The Next Wave of Litigation... Read More

May 7, 2019

Kentucky Employers Must Be Represented by Counsel in Unemployment Compensation Hearings, Court Rules

May 7, 2019

Non-lawyers may no longer represent employers in unemployment compensation hearings in Kentucky, the Kentucky Court of Appeals has ruled. Nichols v. Kentucky Unemployment Commission, et al., No. 2017-CA-001156-MR, 2019 Ky. App. LEXIS 73 (Ky Ct. App. Apr. 26, 2019). The Court held the section of the Kentucky unemployment compensation... Read More

April 24, 2019

U.S. Supreme Court: Employment Class Arbitration Must Be Expressly Addressed in Contract

April 24, 2019

Class action arbitration is such a departure from ordinary, bilateral arbitration of individual disputes that courts may compel class action arbitration only where the parties expressly declare their intention to be bound by such actions in their arbitration agreement, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in a 5-4 decision. Lamps Plus, Inc.... Read More

Related Practices