Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act has been around for almost 40 years and has been the subject of many court cases. A recent Supreme Court decision called Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa has changed the way discrimination in the workplace is proven. Before this, the Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins case set out a method for proving discrimination when there is evidence of both discriminatory and neutral reasons for an employment decision. This new decision has raised more questions about how to apply the method. Earlier cases like Griggs v. Duke Power Co. and International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States also set out ways to prove discrimination based on statistics and disparate impact. In 1973, the Supreme Court made a decision in a case called McDonnell Douglas v. Green. This decision established a way for plaintiffs to prove intentional discrimination using circumstantial evidence. It’s used most often in discrimination cases when the defendant files a motion for summary judgment. The process involves the plaintiff showing that they belong to a group protected from discrimination, that they are qualified for a job, that they experienced a negative action like being fired or not getting a promotion, and that they were replaced or treated better by someone not in the protected group. Then, the defendant just has to give a reason for their actions that is not discriminatory. It’s then up to the plaintiff to prove that the reason given by the defendant is not the real reason for their actions. This can be really hard to do, so a lot of discrimination cases are dismissed before going to trial. Price Waterhouse allows a plaintiff in a discrimination case to have an advantage if they can show that the employer had a discriminatory reason for their actions. If the evidence supports this, then the burden is on the employer to prove that they would have made the same decision even without the discrimination. This makes it harder for the employer to defend themselves compared to if the plaintiff only had circumstantial evidence. Courts have relied on a comment by a judge in a case called Price Waterhouse when deciding discrimination cases. The comment says that a person who claims they were treated unfairly because of a certain reason must show direct evidence that the unfair reason was a big factor in the decision. But, there’s a lot of disagreement about what counts as direct evidence. Some judges say it has to prove the fact without any guessing, while others say it just has to make it more likely than not that the unfair reason was a big factor. In one case, a person claimed they were not promoted at work because of their race, and a coworker made a comment that seemed to support the claim. But the court didn’t think the comment was clear enough to prove anything. So, it’s not always easy for people to prove they were discriminated against based on what someone says. In the Febres v. Challenger Caribbean Corporation case, the court found that a statement made by a decisionmaker about age being a factor in laying off employees was direct evidence of discrimination. This required the court to grant the plaintiff’s request for a mixed motive jury instruction, despite the argument that age might have been used to benefit older employees.
In the Bass v. Board of County Commissioners case, a statement by the chief of the fire and rescue division about promoting based on color was not considered direct evidence of discrimination because he was not involved in the promotion decision. The court noted, however, that an affirmative action program could be considered direct evidence if it influenced a decision and its purpose was not just to fix an imbalance in the employment of protected groups.
In the Desert Palace case, the Supreme Court ruled that it is not necessary to present direct evidence of discrimination to raise the question of a mixed motive. The court looked at the amendments to Title VII in the 1991 Civil Rights Act, which stated that an unlawful employment practice is established if discrimination was a motivating factor for the practice, even if other factors also played a role.
In the case of Catharina Costa, the only woman in her work area, she alleged discriminatory acts based on her gender, leading to her dismissal after a physical altercation with a male coworker. The jury found in her favor after receiving a mixed motive instruction, despite the employer arguing that she was not entitled to it without direct evidence.
In simple terms, these cases deal with whether certain statements or actions can be considered direct evidence of discrimination in employment decisions. The Court said that a person suing for discrimination doesn’t have to show direct evidence that their employer used a prohibited reason for making a decision. They can use circumstantial evidence instead. As long as they have enough evidence for a jury to think it’s more likely than not that the employer used a prohibited reason, they can make their case. This means that circumstantial evidence, like things that suggest discrimination but don’t prove it outright, can be really important in discrimination cases. In discrimination cases, circumstantial evidence is just as important as direct evidence. A recent court case called Desert Palace has raised some questions about how much circumstantial evidence is needed to prove discrimination, and whether it changes the way discrimination cases are handled. Lower courts are still figuring out how to apply the new ruling. In these cases, Judge Magnuson changed the way discrimination cases are handled in federal court. He said that the usual rules for proving discrimination don’t work anymore because of changes in the law. Other judges in different cases agreed with Judge Magnuson’s reasoning. It’s not clear whether the Supreme Court would agree with all of Judge Magnuson’s ideas, but for now, his decisions are having a big impact on how discrimination cases are handled in federal court. Other judges have disagreed with Judge Magnuson’s interpretation, stating that Desert Palace did not change McDonnell Douglas. In Rozkowiak v. Village of Arlington Heights, the court rejected Dare’s ruling and said that McDonnell Douglas is still valid for Title VII cases. In Herawi v. State of Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences, the court also said McDonnell Douglas is still valid and denied the employer’s motion for summary judgment. In Owens v. Excel Management Services, the court rejected the idea that Desert Palace changed McDonnell Douglas and granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. In a race discrimination case, the court came up with a new way to apply the rules for proving discrimination in the workplace. When the employer gives a reason for its decision, the employee can now try to show that the reason is not true, or that their race played a part in the decision, even if there was another valid reason for it. If the employee can prove this, the burden then shifts back to the employer to show that they would have made the same decision even without the discriminatory motives. The court used this new method to deny a summary judgment in a case where a black employee was disciplined more harshly than white employees for similar behavior. This approach was also used in another case. In a court case called Campetti v. Allentown Business School, the court decided that the case could proceed under a mixed motive standard. This means that the employer’s actions could have been motivated by discrimination. The court looked at two statements made by the employer’s director of human resources and president, and said that a jury should decide if these statements showed evidence of discrimination. This decision was based on a previous case called Desert Palace. Rowland v. American General Finance Inc. was a gender discrimination case where a woman was denied a promotion because she was a woman. The court ruled that the trial court was wrong for not giving a mixed motive jury instruction. This means that if someone in charge said they didn’t want another woman in a certain job, that could be enough evidence for a discrimination case. Another court case, Hill v. Lockheed Martin, said that actions or statements by someone not involved in the decision-making process don’t count as evidence of discrimination. Desert Palace is a court case that changed how discrimination cases are handled. It’s unclear if the decision will apply to other discrimination laws, like ones that involve family leave or fair pay. Some courts have already disagreed on this. Some say the decision only applies to certain discrimination cases, while others say it could apply to different kinds of discrimination. For example, one court said the decision doesn’t apply to age discrimination cases, but another court used it to support a discrimination claim based on age. So, it’s still up in the air how Desert Palace will be used in the future. In Beckman v. KGB Telecommunications, the court didn’t apply a new rule that makes it easier to prove age discrimination. The plaintiff’s evidence wasn’t strong enough to prove his case. In Lloyd v. City of Bethlehem, the court said the plaintiff didn’t prove he was discriminated against because of his age. But in Rachid v. Jack in the Box, the court said it’s okay to use indirect evidence to show age discrimination. So it depends on the case. In a discrimination case, the court changed the rules for proving discrimination. Now, if the defendant gives a reason for their actions, the plaintiff has to show that the reason is just an excuse for discrimination. They also have to show that discrimination was a big part of the defendant’s decision. If the plaintiff can prove this, the defendant has to prove that they would have made the same decision even without the discrimination. This new rule applies to claims under a law called 42 U.S.C. §1981. One court used this new rule in a case where someone claimed they were treated unfairly because of their race. The court said that the new rule should apply to claims under both Title VII and 42 U.S.C. §1981 because the laws are similar. The Desert Palace decision says that circumstantial evidence can be just as good as direct evidence in discrimination cases. This means that lower courts may start using circumstantial evidence to prove discrimination in cases other than Title VII. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the future. Donald J. Spero is a lawyer who has been practicing labor and employment law for over 30 years. He now works as a mediator and arbitrator. He is board certified in labor and employment law. This column is written on behalf of the Labor and Employment Law Section, Susan L. Dolin, chair, and Frank E. Brown, editor.
Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/desert-palace-inc-v-costadoes-mcdonnell-douglas-survive/
Leave a Reply