Faced with hefty legal bills, damage awards, or settlements as a result of discrimination or harassment claims, employers have attempted to recover costs from third parties whom they perceive as causing or sharing responsibility for the problem. To this end, employers have sued unions and even their own employees in an effort to spread the financial responsibility. The theories behind such suits, and their results, have been mixed.
Recent rulings of interest to your practice.
National rulings of interest to you and your practice.
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.
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?
A "hello" from our new Editor-in-Chief, Elizabeth Anne "Betiayn" Tursi.
Copyright Jurisdiction/ Television Licenses The issue of whether a TV programming license was properly terminated is to be decided by a state, rather…
© Copyright 2026 ALM Global, LLC trading as Centellic.
Advertise with Us Customer Support Terms of Service Privacy Policy
