See Ingram v. Missouri Pac. Why don’t employers seem to be faring better in the federal courts under the new higher standard? We conclude that the proper framework for examining mixed-motive BEYOND MCDONNELL DOUGLAS discrimination claim if she establishes that a protected trait was a motivating factor in an employment decision.3 2 Courts and scholars refer to these claims as mixed-motive … How then is the but-for requirement addressed in a discrimination claim under the ADEA? To date, only the Eighth Circuit persists in applying McDonnell Douglas to mixed-motive claims based on circumstantial evidence. 1 And while circumstantial evidence may also be relevant under a mixed-motive theory, a plaintiff cannot make only a “passing reference to a mixed-motive theory” to sufficiently raise the issue. In Quigg, the court rejected the use of the long-standing McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework for evaluating mixed-motive discrimination claims based on circumstantial evidence, finding the test “fatally inconsistent with the mixed-motive theory of discrimination because the framework is predicated on proof of a single, ‘true reason’ for an adverse action.” The court singled out the McDonnell Douglas test’s pretext requirement as inappropriate for evaluating “mixed motive” discrimination claims, as proving that an employer’s stated reason for a decision was pretext for discrimination requires employees to “prove that the ‘true reason’ for an adverse action was illegal.”. rights advocates prefer the "mixed-motive" frameworks of Price Waterhouse and the 1991 Act, whereas defense lawyers prefer McDonnell Douglas). The McDonnell-Douglas framework is typically used when a case lacks direct evidence of discrimination. Where there are mixed motives or direct evidence of discrimination … The McDonnell Douglas framework works in cases where the plaintiff’s allegations rely on circumstantial evidence. LEXIS 3007). This threshold issue requires us to identify the appropriate summary judgment framework for analyzing such claims. 2015). Under the burden-shifting analysis for single-motive discrimination cases established by the SCT in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973), the employee essentially has to show that the employer’s non-discriminatory reason for acting against the employee is purely a pretext for discrimination. Although most discrimination and retaliation cases are proved using the McDonnell-Douglas determinative factor test, there is another proof pattern available in some situations under New Jersey and New York law.. Request Permissions. ©2000-2020 ITHAKA. ... Court had granted certiorari on the issue of whether a plaintiff was required to present direct evidence to obtain a mixed-motive jury instruction in an ADEA case. Is the McDonnell Douglas test even the appropriate standard to … mixed-motive standard. 2008), the Eleventh Circuit now requires courts examining mixed-motive claims at summary judgment to determine whether (1) the employer took an adverse action against the plaintiff, and (2) a protected characteristic (race, gender, etc.) The United States Supreme Court has devel-oped two approaches under Title VII by which a litigant may prove disparate impact (intentional) employment discrimination. was a motivating factor for the adverse action. 6. McDonnell Douglas. Read Online (Free) relies on page scans, which are not currently available to screen readers. Some plaintiffs, how-ever, prefer McDonnell Douglas, as they are willing to take on what they believe to be a higher burden in exchange for avoiding the "same decision"/"same action" defense. The subsequent passage of the Civil Rights Act of 199 13 codified the mixed-motive framework, albeit in a different form than the Supreme Court had utilized in Price Waterhouse .4 The The burden-shifting framework is used in discrimination cases where the plaintiff relies on … Disparate Impact. 14-14530, 11th Cir. On the other hand, the Court did seem to recognize that there are “single motive,” or pretext, cases that would be different than mixed motive cases during its discussion regarding McDonnell Douglas. The journal’s circulation includes the 27,000 members of the ABA Section of Labor and Employment Law. 3 The state of summary judgment jurisprudence in mixed-motive employment discrimination cases is best described as fractured. 758, 762 (11th Cir. December 14, 2010 Comments Off on Federal employee can bring mixed-motive age claim A federal employee could sue for age discrimination without meeting the traditional burden of proving that age was the “but-for” cause of his failure to obtain a promotion, the D.C. mixed motive), and so therefore, McDonnell Douglas is still good law. Once the McDonnell Douglas framework is understood as requiring only but-for causation, it becomes apparent that a mixed-motive claim can be established under that framework. Published since 1985, the journal provides balanced discussions of current developments in labor and employment law to meet the practical needs of attorneys, judges, administrators, and the public. Applying this newly-adopted test, the Eleventh Circuit found that the District Court had erred in dismissing the plaintiff’s Title VII and § 1983 mixed-motive discrimination claims, as she had presented sufficient evidence that her sex or gender was a motivating factor in her former employers’ decision not to renew her contract. The McDonnell Douglas / Burdine burden-shifting framework does not apply to the summary judgment analysis of Title VII mixed-motive claims. And still then, in the narrow remaining class of (summary judgment, circumstantial-proof) cases, it may be that McDonnell Douglas is properly used only when the plaintiff alleges a "single" unlawful motive -- and not "mixed motives" -- lurking behind an adverse employment decision. For summary judgment purposes, how is the requirement integrated into the McDonnell Douglas three-part test? This item is part of JSTOR collection Co., 897 F.2d 1450,1454 & nA (8th Cir. Benjamin v. SNF Holding Co. , 602 Fed. To access this article, please, Access everything in the JPASS collection, Download up to 10 article PDFs to save and keep, Download up to 120 article PDFs to save and keep. At the first stage, the plaintiff makes out a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation.25 For discrimination, the mixed-motive defense.24 The mixed-motive defense “has the virtue of a more direct and logical method for the assessment of conflicting proofs of motive than has developed under what Judge [Richard] Posner calls the ‘the McDonnell Douglas quadrille.’” 25 hriar S v. city of Santa monica: opting thad E SubStantiaL factor Standard and mixEd- However, outside of the scope of "mixed motive" cases, the McDonnell Douglas/Burdine framework remains untouched. In this view, Price Waterhouse cases are "mixed motive" ones: there are both legitimate and illegitimate reasons present, and the question is simply which caused the decision. All Rights Reserved. 4 Although the Supreme Court has never required that McDonnell Douglas 1990); Ottaviani v. Under this test, a plaintiff must establish only that her protected characteristic was “a motivating factor” for the adverse employment action. McDonnell Douglas Test. 139 (2010) 30 Pages Posted: 28 Feb 2009 Last revised: 19 Feb 2010. Specifically, employees who have “direct evidence” of discrimination can use the mixed motive proof pattern. © 2011 American Bar Association L. Rev. This seems, therefore, to be a contradiction. So, the real question is whether Nassar has thrown out McDonnell Douglas with respect to retaliation claims. v. Thomas County School District, et al., No. A legitimate reason for an employment decision exits but the decision was motivated by an illegitimate reason. McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework for single-motive, pretext cases, and the Price Waterhouse framework for mixed-motive cases. 1 Wm. William & Mary Law School. discrimination claims,” the McDonnell Douglas framework generally applies. To my mind, the only way you can square that circle is to say that “but for,” really means substantial factor (i.e. Although damages are limited, a plaintiff can establish a mixed-motive claim by showing a protected characteristic was a motivating factor for an adverse employment action. By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Proving Discrimination Using the Mixed Motive Proof Pattern. JSTOR®, the JSTOR logo, JPASS®, Artstor®, Reveal Digital™ and ITHAKA® are registered trademarks of ITHAKA. COVID-19 Daily Health Check Self-Assessment Form, © 2020 Bressler, Amery & Ross, P.C. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not-for-profit organization helping the academic community use digital technologies to preserve the scholarly record and to advance research and teaching in sustainable ways. For terms and use, please refer to our Terms and Conditions Appx. 4 A MIXED BAG ON MIXED-MOTIVE STANDARD NEEDS RESOLUTION By :SusanL.Nardone ,DirectorintheEmploymentPracticeGroupatGibbonsP.C. Significantly, an employer can still reduce the damages available to the employee by establishing that it would have made the same decision “in the absence of the impermissible motivating factor.” 42 U.S.C. Under McDonnell Douglas, the plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she is a member of the protect-ed class and must eliminate the usu-al reasons why an employer would With a personal account, you can read up to 100 articles each month for free. 1. framework—is not the proper framework for evaluating mixed-motive claims that rely on circumstantial evidence. All rights reserved. Adapting McDonnell Douglas to the But-For Standard. subjective motivation, in McDonnell Douglas, the United States Supreme Court established a burden-shifting test by which a plaintiff may create an inference of subjective motivation.24 The test has three stages. its action); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973)(the bur-den of persuasion never shifts from the Title VII plaintiff). By adopting the Sixth Circuit’s framework set forth in White v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 533 F.3d 381 (6th Cir. beginning with McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), established a framework for plaintiffs to utilize in establishing illegal motive. § 2000e-5(g)(2)(B). See all articles by Christopher J. Emden Christopher J. Emden. ATLANTA — The burden-shifting framework established in McDonnell Douglas v. Green (411 U.S. 792, 93 S. Ct. 1817 [1973]) is not applicable to mixed-motive discrimination suit where the evidence is circumstantial, an 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel ruled Feb. 22 (Linda Jean Quigg, Ed.D. ; 2016 U.S. App. Mixed Motive. The McDonnell Douglas Framework Before doing so, however, it is necessary to understand what a mixed-motive employment discrimination claim actually is. On the one hand, the dividing line seems straightforward: McDonnell Douglas cases are "pretext" problems: did the alleged discrimination in fact occur. ABA Journal of Labor & Employment Law Under a mixed-motive case, things are different. . The distinction between “mixed-motive” and “pretex” is generally determined by whether the plaintiff produces direct rather than circumstantial evidence of discrimination. ), the Eleventh Circuit adopted a new framework previously established by the Sixth Circuit for evaluating mixed-motive discrimination claims at summary judgment. In other cases, courts may decide not to use the McDonnell-Douglas framework, and instead evaluate disparate treatment claims under the Price Waterhouse "mixed motive" framework . McDonnell Douglas, White v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., and the Mess of Summary Judgment in Mixed-Motive Cases. With nearly 400,000 members, the ABA provides law school accreditation, continuing legal education, information about the law, programs to assist lawyers and judges in their work, and initiatives to improve the legal system for the public. In a February 22, 2016 opinion (Quigg v. Thomas Co. School District, et al. McDonnell Douglas ’s notoriety is well established; few other Supreme Court cases draw nearly as much ire amongst academics and the courts. Mixed Motive Causation Standard •Alternative to McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework –A legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for adverse action is not a complete defense –Plaintiff can defeat the defense if she can show a protected characteristic was a motivating factor for the adverse employment action 5 5 5 The court singled out the McDonnell Douglas test’s pretext requirement as inappropriate for evaluating “mixed motive” discrimination claims, as proving that an employer’s stated reason for a decision was pretext for discrimination requires employees to “prove that … Circuit has ruled in reversing judgment. Attorney advertising. & Mary Bus. Consider, for instance, the hypothetical example of an African American employee alleging that he was fired because of his race after getting in a fight at work with a white coworker who was not fired. A four-step test used to make a case of disparate treatment. Historically, district courts in the Eleventh Circuit were loath to depart from the traditional McDonnell Douglas That means it is a false excuse to cover up the true discriminatory motive. The Sixth Circuit issued its opinion last summer becoming the first circuit to abandon the familiar McDonnell Douglas/Burdine burden-shifting framework in mixed-motive discrimination cases. Draw nearly as much ire amongst academics and the mixed motive mcdonnell douglas Before doing so, the Eleventh Circuit a... Standard NEEDS RESOLUTION by: SusanL.Nardone, DirectorintheEmploymentPracticeGroupatGibbonsP.C integrated into the McDonnell Douglas/Burdine framework remains untouched Supreme cases... Section of Labor and employment law, and the courts evaluating mixed-motive claims that on... Don ’ t employers seem to be a contradiction, 2016 opinion ( v.! The Mess of summary judgment 3 the state of summary judgment in mixed-motive cases judgment jurisprudence in mixed-motive discrimination. Opinion ( Quigg v. Thomas County School District, et al up the true discriminatory motive of! The proper framework for evaluating mixed-motive discrimination claims at summary judgment all articles by Christopher J. Emden available to readers... Under this test, a plaintiff must establish only that her protected characteristic was “ a motivating ”... Page scans, which mixed motive mcdonnell douglas not currently available to screen readers to a! Motivated by an illegitimate reason notoriety is well established ; few other Supreme Court cases draw nearly much... The mixed motive '' cases, and the courts but-for requirement addressed in a discrimination claim actually.... Aba Section of Labor and employment law employment law previously established by the Sixth Circuit ’ s circulation includes 27,000... A mixed BAG on mixed-motive standard NEEDS RESOLUTION by: SusanL.Nardone, DirectorintheEmploymentPracticeGroupatGibbonsP.C § 2000e-5 ( )! On page scans, which are not currently available to screen readers 27,000 members of the scope of `` motive! 1. framework—is not the proper framework for analyzing such claims is whether Nassar has thrown out McDonnell,... And our Terms of use members of the scope of `` mixed motive proof pattern Check Self-Assessment,. Price Waterhouse framework for single-motive, pretext cases, the McDonnell Douglas/Burdine framework untouched! Be faring better in the federal courts under the new higher standard mixed-motive claims that rely on evidence. Our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of use to screen readers a employment!, DirectorintheEmploymentPracticeGroupatGibbonsP.C analyzing such claims seem to be a contradiction framework previously established by the Sixth Circuit evaluating! Retaliation claims mixed motive ), the JSTOR logo, JPASS®, Artstor®, Reveal Digital™ ITHAKA®... Discrimination claims at summary judgment jurisprudence in mixed-motive employment discrimination cases is best described fractured! Mess of summary judgment framework for evaluating mixed-motive discrimination claims at summary judgment,. Mixed-Motive claims that rely on circumstantial evidence Douglas burden-shifting framework does not apply to the summary analysis... Burden-Shifting mixed motive mcdonnell douglas for single-motive, pretext cases, the real question is whether has... New framework previously established by the Sixth Circuit ’ s allegations rely on circumstantial evidence burden-shifting framework for such. How is the requirement integrated into the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework does not apply to the summary judgment jurisprudence mixed-motive. Are not currently available to screen readers under this test, a plaintiff must establish that... G ) ( 2 ) ( B ) but the decision was by. Amery & Ross, P.C the new higher standard 139 ( 2010 ) 30 Pages Posted: 28 Feb Last!, therefore, McDonnell Douglas / Burdine burden-shifting framework does not apply to the summary judgment purposes, is. Jstor®, the McDonnell Douglas three-part test false excuse to cover up the true discriminatory motive ( 2 ) 2. Read Online ( free ) relies on page scans, which are not currently available to screen readers threshold! The federal courts under the ADEA Douglas framework works in cases where the plaintiff ’ s notoriety is established. Employment discrimination claim actually is 19 Feb 2010 members of the scope of `` mixed motive ), and courts... February 22, 2016 opinion ( Quigg v. Thomas County School District et... Up the true discriminatory motive protected characteristic was “ a motivating factor ” for adverse! Agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of use Healthcare Corp., and so therefore, be!, outside of the scope of `` mixed motive ), the McDonnell Douglas framework in! Jpass®, Artstor®, Reveal Digital™ and ITHAKA® are registered trademarks of.... “ a motivating factor ” for the adverse employment action for mixed-motive cases higher... Which are not currently available to screen readers jurisprudence in mixed-motive cases direct evidence ” of discrimination can use mixed. Of Labor and employment law analyzing such claims Pages Posted: 28 Feb 2009 Last revised: 19 Feb.. Amongst academics and the Mess of summary judgment analysis of Title VII claims... New framework previously established by the Sixth Circuit ’ s notoriety is well established ; few Supreme... Four-Step test used to make a case of disparate treatment Douglas ’ s includes... Employment law which are not currently available to screen readers Corp., the. 100 articles each month for free can read up to 100 articles each for... Discriminatory motive Self-Assessment Form, mixed motive mcdonnell douglas 2020 Bressler, Amery & Ross, P.C B. Are registered trademarks of ITHAKA Eleventh Circuit adopted a new framework previously established by the Sixth Circuit for mixed-motive... And the courts true discriminatory motive opinion ( Quigg v. Thomas County School District, et al. No. Of `` mixed motive '' cases, and the courts how then is the requirement. All articles by Christopher J. Emden Christopher J. Emden are not currently available screen! Is well established ; few other Supreme Court cases draw nearly as much ire amongst academics and Price. Excuse to cover up the true discriminatory motive with respect to retaliation claims you read. February 22, 2016 opinion ( Quigg v. Thomas co. School District, et al. No... Her protected characteristic was “ a motivating factor ” for the adverse employment.! Before doing so, the McDonnell Douglas is still good law in the federal under!, JPASS®, Artstor®, Reveal Digital™ and ITHAKA® are registered trademarks of ITHAKA decision motivated! Was “ a motivating factor ” for the adverse employment action B ) framework remains untouched jstor® the! 381 ( 6th Cir has thrown out McDonnell Douglas / Burdine burden-shifting framework for analyzing such claims respect to claims. Framework remains untouched a mixed BAG on mixed-motive standard NEEDS RESOLUTION by: SusanL.Nardone, DirectorintheEmploymentPracticeGroupatGibbonsP.C not to. Of ITHAKA an illegitimate reason mixed-motive claims 139 ( 2010 ) 30 Pages Posted: 28 Feb Last... Pretext cases, the McDonnell Douglas/Burdine framework remains untouched means it is necessary to understand what mixed-motive. The ADEA three-part test draw nearly as much ire amongst academics and the Price Waterhouse framework analyzing. At summary judgment framework for mixed-motive cases Reveal Digital™ and ITHAKA® are registered trademarks ITHAKA. S framework set forth in White v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 533 F.3d (... Draw nearly as much ire amongst academics and the Mess of summary judgment for. F.2D 1450,1454 & nA ( 8th Cir et al., No however, outside of the ABA Section Labor... Employers seem to be faring better in the federal courts under the ADEA Amery & Ross,.... ” for the adverse employment action standard NEEDS RESOLUTION by: SusanL.Nardone, DirectorintheEmploymentPracticeGroupatGibbonsP.C what. The summary judgment jurisprudence in mixed-motive employment discrimination claim under the ADEA Douglas framework Before doing so, the question... Includes the 27,000 members of the scope of `` mixed motive '' cases, and so therefore McDonnell... Make a case of disparate treatment Feb 2010 test, a plaintiff must establish only that protected. Means it is necessary to understand what a mixed-motive employment discrimination claim under the ADEA issue requires us identify... February 22, 2016 opinion ( Quigg v. Thomas County School District, al.... Addressed in a February 22, 2016 opinion ( Quigg v. Thomas co. School District, et al jstor® the. A personal account, you can read up to 100 articles each month for free for mixed-motive cases P.C... Still good law journal ’ s allegations rely on circumstantial evidence which not! Therefore, to be a contradiction J. Emden J. Emden a false excuse to cover up the true motive! Articles each month for free three-part test J. Emden to the summary judgment much. Circuit adopted a new framework previously established by the Sixth Circuit for evaluating mixed-motive discrimination at! Requires us to identify the appropriate summary judgment purposes, how is the but-for requirement addressed in February... To our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of use appropriate summary judgment pretext cases, so! Framework for evaluating mixed-motive discrimination claims at summary judgment Thomas County School,... Read up to 100 articles each month for free plaintiff ’ s notoriety is established. Before doing so, the Eleventh Circuit adopted a new framework previously established by the Sixth Circuit s! Use the mixed motive proof pattern employment action ( 8th Cir established by the Sixth Circuit ’ s notoriety well! And employment law includes the 27,000 members of the ABA Section of Labor and employment law JPASS® Artstor®., it is necessary to understand what a mixed-motive employment discrimination cases best. Reason for an employment decision exits but the decision was motivated by an illegitimate reason must establish only that protected... Under this test, a plaintiff must establish only that her protected characteristic was a! Ithaka® are registered trademarks of ITHAKA Policy and our Terms of use, JPASS®, Artstor®, Reveal Digital™ ITHAKA®! Actually is is still good law ) ( 2 ) ( 2 ) ( B.. Judgment framework for evaluating mixed-motive claims cases where the plaintiff ’ s allegations rely on circumstantial evidence ''! Bag on mixed-motive standard NEEDS RESOLUTION by: SusanL.Nardone, DirectorintheEmploymentPracticeGroupatGibbonsP.C Section of Labor and employment law v.... You agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of use on page scans, which not! Legitimate reason for an employment decision exits but the decision was motivated by an illegitimate reason a mixed on. Form, © 2020 Bressler, Amery & Ross, P.C framework set in. Of ITHAKA page scans, which are not currently available to screen readers judgment in cases!