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