At the conclusion of its most recent 2002-2003 term, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision clarifying plaintiffs' standard of proof in "mixed-motive" employment discrimination cases under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991. In Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa, the Court held that a plaintiff is required to prove by direct evidence that an unlawful factor was a "motivating factor" in the challenged adverse employment action. Instead, a plaintiff can prove his or her discrimination claim in a mixed-motive case by circumstantial evidence. As a result of this decision, defendants will find it more difficult to obtain summary judgment dismissing mixed-motive discrimination cases prior to trial, the result of which will be that more such cases will be subjected to the uncertainties of jury trials.
- November 01, 2003Robert P. Lewis
Can the creation of a hostile environment suffice as an adverse employment action in a retaliation claim under Title VII and in similar state and city actions?
October 31, 2003ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |A "hello" from our new Editor-in-Chief, Elizabeth Anne "Betiayn" Tursi.
October 28, 2003ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |Test your knowledge of the law!
October 27, 2003ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |Copyright Jurisdiction/ Television Licenses The issue of whether a TV programming license was properly terminated is to be decided by a state, rather…
October 24, 2003ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |Test your knowledge of the law!
October 22, 2003ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |Test your knowledge of the law!
October 21, 2003ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |He may be voted out of office soon, but California Governor Gray Davis is making his mark in the Internet world before he goes. On September 23, Davis signed what to date is the toughest anti-spam bill in the U.S.
October 21, 2003Steven Salkin, Esq.The latest from the UK.
October 17, 2003ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |Expert testimony can be the linchpin that makes or breaks a case. But lawyers have had a tougher time getting that testimony admitted since 1993, when the U.S. Supreme Court decided in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals that scientific testimony must be not only relevant, but reliable. In 1999's Kumho Tire v. Carmichael, the Court extended that rule to all experts. This means that a lawyer preparing to qualify or challenge an expert at trial must answer a number of questions. What is the state of the case law under Daubert? How has the particular court or judge applied the rule? How have courts ruled on this type of expertise? Has this expert ever come before a judge?
October 16, 2003Robert J. Ambrogi