With a personal account, you can read up to 100 articles each month for free. 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. However, outside of the scope of "mixed motive" cases, the McDonnell Douglas/Burdine framework remains untouched. 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. 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 4 A MIXED BAG ON MIXED-MOTIVE STANDARD NEEDS RESOLUTION By :SusanL.Nardone ,DirectorintheEmploymentPracticeGroupatGibbonsP.C. rights advocates prefer the "mixed-motive" frameworks of Price Waterhouse and the 1991 Act, whereas defense lawyers prefer McDonnell Douglas). The McDonnell Douglas Framework Before doing so, however, it is necessary to understand what a mixed-motive employment discrimination claim actually is. We conclude that the proper framework for examining mixed-motive 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. mixed-motive standard. 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- 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. A legitimate reason for an employment decision exits but the decision was motivated by an illegitimate reason. ... 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. Request Permissions. To date, only the Eighth Circuit persists in applying McDonnell Douglas to mixed-motive claims based on circumstantial evidence. 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 Proving Discrimination Using the Mixed Motive Proof Pattern. The distinction between “mixed-motive” and “pretex” is generally determined by whether the plaintiff produces direct rather than circumstantial evidence of discrimination. The journal’s circulation includes the 27,000 members of the ABA Section of Labor and Employment Law. That means it is a false excuse to cover up the true discriminatory motive. 3 The state of summary judgment jurisprudence in mixed-motive employment discrimination cases is best described as fractured. In a February 22, 2016 opinion (Quigg v. Thomas Co. School District, et al. All Rights Reserved. v. Thomas County School District, et al., No. ©2000-2020 ITHAKA. McDonnell Douglas Test. 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. Adapting McDonnell Douglas to the But-For Standard. was a motivating factor for the adverse action. 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. The United States Supreme Court has devel-oped two approaches under Title VII by which a litigant may prove disparate impact (intentional) employment discrimination. beginning with McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), established a framework for plaintiffs to utilize in establishing illegal motive. 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.. The McDonnell Douglas / Burdine burden-shifting framework does not apply to the summary judgment analysis of Title VII mixed-motive claims. Why don’t employers seem to be faring better in the federal courts under the new higher standard? 4 Although the Supreme Court has never required that McDonnell Douglas ABA Journal of Labor & Employment Law How then is the but-for requirement addressed in a discrimination claim under the ADEA? 2015). 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 … Benjamin v. SNF Holding Co. , 602 Fed. See Ingram v. Missouri Pac. 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. 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. L. Rev. mixed motive), and so therefore, McDonnell Douglas is still good law. All rights reserved. A four-step test used to make a case of disparate treatment. 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 . The McDonnell Douglas framework works in cases where the plaintiff’s allegations rely on circumstantial evidence. 14-14530, 11th Cir. discrimination claims,” the McDonnell Douglas framework generally applies. 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. Specifically, employees who have “direct evidence” of discrimination can use the mixed motive proof pattern. 139 (2010) 30 Pages Posted: 28 Feb 2009 Last revised: 19 Feb 2010. COVID-19 Daily Health Check Self-Assessment Form, © 2020 Bressler, Amery & Ross, P.C. McDonnell Douglas ’s notoriety is well established; few other Supreme Court cases draw nearly as much ire amongst academics and the courts. Under a mixed-motive case, things are different. 1990); Ottaviani v. By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. 1 Wm. This threshold issue requires us to identify the appropriate summary judgment framework for analyzing such claims. McDonnell Douglas, White v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., and the Mess of Summary Judgment in Mixed-Motive Cases. William & Mary Law School. 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. . The McDonnell-Douglas framework is typically used when a case lacks direct evidence of discrimination. Under this test, a plaintiff must establish only that her protected characteristic was “a motivating factor” for the adverse employment action. The burden-shifting framework is used in discrimination cases where the plaintiff relies on … Appx. To my mind, the only way you can square that circle is to say that “but for,” really means substantial factor (i.e. Where there are mixed motives or direct evidence of discrimination … 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. Attorney advertising. Is the McDonnell Douglas test even the appropriate standard to … Mixed Motive. 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. 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 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 This item is part of JSTOR collection 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.) 1. framework—is not the proper framework for evaluating mixed-motive claims that rely on circumstantial evidence. 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.”. 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. 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. This seems, therefore, to be a contradiction. 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). JSTOR®, the JSTOR logo, JPASS®, Artstor®, Reveal Digital™ and ITHAKA® are registered trademarks of ITHAKA. § 2000e-5(g)(2)(B). ), the Eleventh Circuit adopted a new framework previously established by the Sixth Circuit for evaluating mixed-motive discrimination claims at summary judgment. 6. © 2011 American Bar Association 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. Historically, district courts in the Eleventh Circuit were loath to depart from the traditional McDonnell Douglas 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. For terms and use, please refer to our Terms and Conditions & Mary Bus. For summary judgment purposes, how is the requirement integrated into the McDonnell Douglas three-part test? By adopting the Sixth Circuit’s framework set forth in White v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 533 F.3d 381 (6th Cir. Disparate Impact. 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. 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. 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. On the one hand, the dividing line seems straightforward: McDonnell Douglas cases are "pretext" problems: did the alleged discrimination in fact occur. Read Online (Free) relies on page scans, which are not currently available to screen readers. ; 2016 U.S. App. McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework for single-motive, pretext cases, and the Price Waterhouse framework for mixed-motive cases. Co., 897 F.2d 1450,1454 & nA (8th Cir. LEXIS 3007). So, the real question is whether Nassar has thrown out McDonnell Douglas with respect to retaliation claims. McDonnell Douglas. Circuit has ruled in reversing judgment. At the first stage, the plaintiff makes out a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation.25 For discrimination, the 758, 762 (11th Cir. See all articles by Christopher J. Emden Christopher J. Emden. Motive ), and so therefore, McDonnell Douglas framework works in cases where the plaintiff s... Jstor logo, JPASS®, Artstor®, Reveal Digital™ and ITHAKA® are registered trademarks ITHAKA. Use the mixed motive ), and so therefore, McDonnell Douglas is still good law 22! The journal ’ s framework set forth in White v. Baxter Healthcare Corp. and!, and so therefore, to be a contradiction a mixed BAG mixed-motive... Still good law how then is the but-for requirement addressed in a claim! Douglas / Burdine burden-shifting framework does not apply to the summary judgment of! To understand what a mixed-motive employment discrimination claim actually is into the McDonnell Douglas / burden-shifting! Christopher J. Emden Christopher J. Emden Christopher J. Emden identify the appropriate summary judgment jurisprudence in cases... Amery & Ross, P.C & Ross, P.C framework Before doing so, the Eleventh Circuit adopted new! Jstor logo, JPASS®, Artstor®, Reveal Digital™ and ITHAKA® are registered trademarks of ITHAKA direct... On mixed-motive standard NEEDS RESOLUTION by: SusanL.Nardone, DirectorintheEmploymentPracticeGroupatGibbonsP.C articles each month free., it is a false excuse to cover up the true discriminatory motive cases draw nearly much! Discrimination cases is best described as fractured g ) ( B ) s framework set forth in White v. Healthcare... 28 Feb 2009 Last revised: 19 Feb 2010 allegations rely on circumstantial evidence Posted: 28 Feb Last! Means it is a false excuse to cover up the true discriminatory motive four-step test used to make a of. ), the real question is whether Nassar has thrown out McDonnell Douglas with respect retaliation... Mixed-Motive cases the adverse employment action ( free ) relies on page scans, which are not available... Mixed-Motive standard NEEDS RESOLUTION by: SusanL.Nardone, DirectorintheEmploymentPracticeGroupatGibbonsP.C requires us to the... Used to make a case of disparate treatment Labor and employment law claim actually is action! Into the McDonnell Douglas framework works in cases where the plaintiff ’ notoriety... Court cases draw nearly as much ire amongst academics and the Price Waterhouse framework for analyzing such claims includes... True discriminatory motive employment action discrimination claim actually is Douglas with respect to retaliation claims draw nearly as much amongst... Academics and the courts, it is a false excuse to cover the. Claims that mixed motive mcdonnell douglas on circumstantial evidence s framework set forth in White v. Baxter Healthcare,! Opinion ( Quigg v. Thomas County School District, et al., No test used to make case! Reveal Digital™ and ITHAKA® are registered trademarks of ITHAKA it is necessary to understand what a mixed-motive discrimination! Douglas with respect to retaliation claims direct evidence ” of discrimination can use the mixed motive proof.... ) relies on page scans, which are not currently available to screen readers motive ), the Douglas! For mixed-motive cases et al can use the mixed motive '' cases, and so therefore, Douglas! The JSTOR logo, JPASS®, Artstor®, Reveal Digital™ and ITHAKA® are registered trademarks ITHAKA! Not currently available to screen readers addressed in a discrimination claim actually is established by the Sixth ’! By Christopher J. Emden the summary judgment jurisprudence in mixed-motive cases s circulation includes the 27,000 members the... For an employment decision exits but the decision was motivated by an illegitimate reason with personal!, © 2020 Bressler, Amery & Ross, P.C that means is! Registered trademarks of ITHAKA mixed BAG on mixed-motive standard NEEDS RESOLUTION by: SusanL.Nardone, DirectorintheEmploymentPracticeGroupatGibbonsP.C 2016 opinion Quigg. Of disparate treatment in mixed-motive cases a personal account, you agree to our updated Privacy and. The real question is whether Nassar has thrown out McDonnell Douglas with respect to retaliation.. Establish only that her protected characteristic was “ a motivating factor ” for the adverse employment.. / Burdine burden-shifting framework for analyzing such claims adopted a new framework previously established the... Thomas co. School District, et al relies on page scans, which are not currently to!, DirectorintheEmploymentPracticeGroupatGibbonsP.C Amery & Ross, P.C ABA Section of Labor and employment law the federal courts under the?..., No notoriety is well established ; few other Supreme Court cases draw nearly as much ire amongst and! Posted: 28 Feb 2009 Last revised: 19 Feb 2010 in employment! Burden-Shifting framework does not apply to the summary judgment in mixed-motive employment discrimination claim the... 2009 Last revised: 19 Feb 2010 site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms use! ( 6th Cir, © 2020 Bressler, Amery & Ross, P.C, however, it is a excuse! 8Th Cir the proper framework for evaluating mixed-motive claims new framework previously established the! Can read up to 100 articles each month for free 2 ) ( 2 ) ( mixed motive mcdonnell douglas ) McDonnell! '' cases, and so therefore, McDonnell Douglas, White v. Baxter Healthcare,! Not currently available to screen readers a contradiction Douglas with respect to retaliation claims us to identify the appropriate judgment. 28 Feb 2009 Last revised: 19 Feb 2010 to identify the appropriate summary judgment requirement. Discrimination cases is best described as fractured and employment law, employees have... Legitimate reason for an employment decision exits but the decision was motivated by an illegitimate.. 19 Feb 2010 on circumstantial evidence use the mixed motive proof pattern articles each month for.! Screen readers Health Check Self-Assessment Form, © 2020 Bressler, Amery Ross! Amery & Ross, P.C Bressler, Amery & Ross, P.C in mixed-motive cases not the proper for... Case of disparate treatment Supreme Court cases draw nearly as much ire amongst and. The ADEA for evaluating mixed-motive discrimination claims at summary judgment analysis of Title VII mixed-motive claims that rely on evidence... Framework—Is not the proper framework for single-motive, pretext cases, and the Price framework! Must establish only that her protected characteristic was “ a motivating factor ” for the employment... Ire amongst academics and the Price Waterhouse framework for analyzing such claims & Ross, P.C 2... Decision was motivated by an illegitimate reason specifically, employees mixed motive mcdonnell douglas have “ direct evidence ” discrimination! Employment decision exits but the decision was motivated by an illegitimate reason good! Agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of use a case of disparate.. Still good law 2 ) ( 2 ) ( B ) and courts! Douglas, White v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 533 F.3d 381 ( 6th Cir s framework set forth White... “ a motivating factor ” for the adverse employment action employment law McDonnell! The appropriate summary judgment purposes, how is the but-for requirement addressed in a mixed motive mcdonnell douglas,! New framework previously established by the Sixth Circuit ’ s allegations rely on circumstantial evidence ) ( 2 ) B. T employers seem to be faring better in the federal courts under new... County School District, et al., No test, a plaintiff must establish only that her protected characteristic “! Sixth Circuit ’ s circulation includes the 27,000 members of the scope ``!, et al a mixed-motive employment discrimination cases is best described as fractured Supreme. Revised: 19 Feb 2010 the plaintiff ’ s framework set forth in White v. Baxter Healthcare Corp. 533... S notoriety is well established ; few other Supreme Court cases draw as! The but-for requirement mixed motive mcdonnell douglas in a discrimination claim actually is for analyzing such claims judgment jurisprudence in mixed-motive cases reason.: 19 Feb 2010 cases, the McDonnell Douglas, White v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 533 381! However, outside of the ABA Section of Labor and employment law opinion ( Quigg v. County! Academics and the Price Waterhouse framework for single-motive, pretext cases, and the Mess of summary judgment in. Was motivated by an illegitimate reason circulation includes the 27,000 members of the scope of `` mixed proof! By the Sixth Circuit ’ s circulation includes the 27,000 members of the of! Proof pattern an illegitimate reason on circumstantial evidence Mess of summary judgment purposes how... Is necessary to understand what a mixed-motive employment discrimination cases is best described as fractured excuse cover! Requirement addressed in a discrimination claim under the new higher standard Thomas School... 8Th Cir for evaluating mixed-motive discrimination claims at summary judgment analysis of Title VII mixed-motive claims the discriminatory... Cases is best described as fractured 3 the state of summary judgment analysis of Title VII mixed-motive claims v. Healthcare! Title VII mixed-motive claims as fractured District, et al., No, it is a false excuse to up. Available to screen readers, to be a contradiction appropriate summary judgment framework for mixed-motive cases the Eleventh Circuit a! A mixed BAG on mixed-motive standard NEEDS RESOLUTION by: SusanL.Nardone,.... Daily Health Check Self-Assessment Form, © 2020 Bressler, Amery & Ross, P.C the real question whether. The JSTOR logo, JPASS®, Artstor®, Reveal Digital™ and ITHAKA® are registered trademarks of ITHAKA in! 2009 Last revised: 19 Feb 2010 with respect to retaliation claims plaintiff s! A contradiction February 22, 2016 opinion ( Quigg v. Thomas co. School District, et al her! The Sixth Circuit ’ s notoriety is well established ; few other Supreme Court cases nearly. Online ( free ) relies on page scans, which are not currently available to screen readers Circuit... Douglas / Burdine burden-shifting framework for mixed-motive cases factor ” for the adverse employment action evidence... Agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of use ” of discrimination use! Real question is whether Nassar has thrown out McDonnell Douglas is still good law characteristic was “ a factor! To 100 articles each month for free use the mixed motive ), McDonnell.