Law Commons^™

"Mixed-Motive" Discrimination Under The Civil Rights Act Of 1991: Still A "Pyrrhic Victory" For Plaintiffs?, Thomas H. Barnard, George S. Crisci

Mercer Law Review

One of the many statutory changes brought about by the Civil Rights Act of 1991 involved an effort to overturn the United States Supreme Court's decision in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins. In that case, the Supreme Court held that when the plaintiff shows that an impermissible factor (e.g., race or gender) played a motivating role in an employment decision, the employer still can avoid liability by proving that it would have made the same employment decision in the absence of the impermissible factor.

Congress responded by amending Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 so that the …

Price Waterhouse: Alive And Well Under The Age Discrimination In Employment Act, H.Lane Dennard Jr., Kendall L. Kelly

Mercer Law Review

Judicial application of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 ("ADEA") may be the most divergent of the employment discrimination laws because the ADEA is a hybrid of two statutes: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 19642 ("Title VII") and the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"). The ADEA incorporates only selected portions of each of these statutes. For example, the general prohibition against age discrimination contained in the ADEA parallels the substantive provisions of Title VII, while the remedial provisions mirror, at least in part, the FLSA. Courts, however, have generally approached the ADEA in …

The Mixed-Motive Defense In Workplace Discrimination Actions And Its Procedural Issues In The Eleventh Circuit, Richard A. Weller

Mercer Law Review

Being fired from one's place of employment is an unfortunate incident that many Americans face on one or more occasions during their lifetimes. Discharged employees obviously experience some degree of economic loss by losing salaries and benefits. Even when rightfully discharged, employees may suffer emotional and psychological harm because of their perceived failure. This harm may be magnified when the employee has been discharged for wrongful, illegal reasons.

However, in some cases an employer may have legitimate, legal reasons to terminate an employee and simultaneously have illegal, discriminatory reasons. In such a "mixed-motives" situation, employers may be able to limit …

Mixed-Motive Cases On Employment Discrimination Law Revisited: A Brief Updated View Of The Swamp, Robert Belton

Mercer Law Review

In 1973 the Supreme Court enunciated an analytical framework in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green with the purpose of providing plaintiffs in statutory employment discrimination cases a full and fair opportunity to prove intentional discrimination despite the unavailability of direct evidence. The McDonnell Douglas framework is used primarily in cases litigated under the disparate treatment theory of discrimination and is based upon presumptions and burden-shifting schemes. McDonnell Douglas was the predominant analytical framework for statutory employment discrimination cases until the Supreme Court decided Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins in 1989. ...

Congress overturned the fundamental holding of Price Waterhouse in the …

Chaos Or Coherence: Individual Disparate Treatment Discrimination And The Adea, Michael J. Zimmer

Mercer Law Review

Individual disparate treatment law appears to be in a chaotic state. The one clear thrust is that the Supreme Court's jurisprudence in the area, and even Congress's most recent amendments to Title VII, no longer govern the field alone. This chaos, however, may be the prelude to a new coherence. That possibility is the point of this Article, which will explore it from the viewpoint of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA").

Part I sets the stage by describing the initial failure of Justice Brennan's attempt in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins to supplant the preexisting framework established in McDonnell …