Law Center Search Results

The Supreme Court 6/9/03 held unanimously that a plaintiff need not present direct evidence of discrimination in order to obtain a “mixed-motive” jury instruction under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (the “Act”). In a “mixed-motive” case, both legitimate and illegitimate reasons motivated the employment decision at issue. Under the Act, “an unlawful employment practice is established” if the plaintiff demonstrates that his or her race, color, religion, sex, or national origin was a “motivating factor,” but an employer can limit the available remedies by demonstrating that it “would have taken the same action in the absence of the impermissible motivating factor.” The Court emphasized the fact that, in defining the term “demonstrates” to mean satisfaction of “the burdens of production and persuasion,” the Act does not include language that would require these burdens to be met by direct evidence or some other heightened showing. The Court reasoned that, in the face of the statute’s silence, it would be inappropriate to depart from the conventional rule of civil litigation that requires a plaintiff to prove his case by a preponderance of the evidence, using direct or circumstantial evidence. This decision, which rejects the heightened evidentiary burden previously recognized by several courts of appeals, is important to all employers covered by Title VII and similar statutes.