So-called “mixed motive” cases, where there is evidence of unlawful bias but also evidence of a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for an employment action, have generated a great deal of debate over the applicable burden of proof. In 1989, a divided U.S. Supreme Court held in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins that, once a plaintiff has proven that
mixed-motive
Sixth Circuit Announces Summary Judgment Standard For Title VII Mixed-Motive Cases
By Porter Wright on
In a case of first-impression, the Sixth Circuit held that the burden-shifting framework (commonly referred to as the McDonnell Douglas/Burdine test) used in cases brought under Title VII does not apply to Title VII mixed-motive cases. The Court held that in order to survive a defendant’s summary judgment motion, a Title VII plaintiff asserting a mixed-motive claim must only produce evidence that: (1) the defendant took an adverse employment action against the plaintiff; and (2) race, color, religion, sex, or national origin was a motivating factor. A plaintiff can succeed by showing that a protected characteristic was a motivating factor even if other factors also motivated the adverse action. White v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 2008 FED App. 0242P, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 14188 (6th Cir. 2008).
Continue Reading Sixth Circuit Announces Summary Judgment Standard For Title VII Mixed-Motive Cases