Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Direct Evidence Not Required in Mixed Motive Case
Last month, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a plaintiff must present direct evidence of discrimination in order to obtain a mixed-motive instruction under Title VII, as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991. Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa, 2003 WL 21310219 (U.S. June 9, 2003) The Court unanimously held that direct evidence is not required. This is consistent with Second Circuit law as articulated in Tyler v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 958 F. 2d 1176 (2d Cir. 1992). In so ruling, the Court resolved a split in the Circuits over the question of the evidentiary burden placed on plaintiffs in Title VII, mixed motive cases.
Price Waterhouse Decision
This is not the first time that this issue has come before the Court. In Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989), the Court considered whether an employment decision is made 'because of' sex where both legitimate and illegitimate reasons motivated the decision. The Price Waterhouse Court concluded that an employer could 'avoid a finding of liability ' by proving that it would have made the same decision even if it had not allowed gender to play such a role.' 490 U.S. at 244; see id. at 261, n. (White, J., concurring in judgment); id. at 261 (O'Connor, J., concurring in judgment). However, the Court was divided over the predicate question of when the burden of proof may be shifted to an employer to prove the affirmative defense. Justice Brennan, writing for a plurality of four Justices, asserted that 'when a plaintiff ' proves that her gender played a motivating part in an employment decision, the defendant may avoid a finding of liability only by proving by a preponderance of the evidence that it would have made the same decision even if it had not taken the plaintiff's gender into account.' Id. at 258 (emphasis added).
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?