Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Civil Rights — mixed motives

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//January 24, 2013//

Civil Rights — mixed motives

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//January 24, 2013//

Listen to this article

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

Civil

Civil Rights — mixed motives

Where the jury found both discriminatory and non-discriminatory motivations on a civil rights claim, judgment was properly entered for the defendant.

“Smith’s request is based on an analogy to claims brought under Title VII, which prohibits employment discrimination ‘because of [an] individual’s race.’ 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). In 1991, Congress amended Title VII to provide that an ‘unlawful employment practice’ is established where a plaintiff demonstrates ‘that race, color, religion, sex, or national origin was a motivating factor for any employment practice, even though other factors also motivated the practice.’ 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(m). If an employer can establish that the same result would have obtained even ‘in the absence of the impermissible motivating factor,’ a court may still grant the plaintiff declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and attorney’s fees and costs (but not damages). 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g)(2)(B). Smith argues that because his discrimination claims share certain similarities to employment discrimination claims brought under Title VII, he is entitled to similar relief here. The history of the Title VII amendments reveals why Smith’s position is not well taken. In 1989, before the addition of the ‘motivating factor’ language to Title VII, the Supreme Court addressed in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989), whether a plaintiff could recover under that statute if there were both proscribed and non-proscribed bases for an employment decision. The Court crafted a burden-shifting framework to govern such ‘mixed-motive’ cases: a Title VII plaintiff who showed that an impermissible motive influenced an adverse employment decision ‘placed upon the defendant the burden to show that it would have made the same decision in the absence of the unlawful motive.’ Id. at 250. A defendant who made such a showing avoided liability altogether. Id. at 258. The Civil Rights Act of 1991, which amended Title VII and several other statutes, represented both a codification of this burden-shifting approach and a limited roll-back of Price Waterhouse’s complete defense to employer liability in mixed-motive situations.”

Affirmed.

11-2496 Smith v. Wilson

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, Conley, J., Wood, J.

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests