Mixed Motive Cases

"My Prior Complaint Was One Of The Reasons For The Adverse Employment Action": Mixed Motive Theories For Retaliation Claims Under...

by Nefertari S. Rigsby | Akerman Senterfitt on 5/10/2013

Recently, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, which addresses the causation standard for retaliation claims under Title VII. The Supreme Court has already held...more

Attorney Fees Not Available In Mixed Motive Retaliation Claims Under Title VII, Seventh Circuit Rules

by Michael Newman | Barger & Wolen on 5/8/2013

Under Title VII, in “mixed motive” discrimination cases (i.e., discrimination motivated in part, but not entirely, by an impermissible factor), an employer may limit Plaintiff’s recovery where it can show that it would have...more

Fifth Circuit: No Fee Shifting For Title VII Mixed-Motive Retaliation Claims

by Jonathan Hershberg, Harris M. Mufson, Steven J. Pearlman | Proskauer - Whistleblowing & Retaliation on 4/18/2013

On April 3, 2013, the Fifth Circuit affirmed a ruling from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas that a plaintiff was not entitled to attorney’s fees and costs under Title VII (42 U.S.C. § 2000 e-5(g))...more

Podcast Shines Light On Latest California Employment News

by David B. Weisenfeld | XpertHR - Partnered with LexisNexis on 3/29/2013

The latest XpertHR podcast features an in-depth look at several new employment law developments out of California, perhaps the most pro-employee state in the nation. Littler Mendelson partner Chris Cobey takes listeners...more

California Supreme Court Revises Jury Instructions And Trial Procedures In Discrimination Cases

by Anthony Oncidi | Proskauer - California Employment Law on 3/27/2013

Wynona Harris alleged her employment was terminated by the City of Santa Monica because of her pregnancy in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. The city claimed Harris had been fired for poor job...more

The California Supreme Court Provides Mixed Result in Mixed Motive Terminations

by W. George Wailes | Carr, McClellan, Ingersoll, Thompson & Horn -... on 3/22/2013

In Harris v. City of Santa Monica, (2013) 56 Cal.4th 203, the California Supreme Court provided long-awaited clarification of the standards that apply when an employer terminates an employee for “mixed motives”—that is, when...more

California Supreme Court Rules "Mixed Motive" Is a Mixed Bag for Employers

by Margaret Edwards, Stephanie Lee, Lucas Munoz | Littler on 3/1/2013

The California Supreme Court recently clarified the defenses available to employers defending against claims of discrimination. In Harris v. City of Santa Monica, No. BC341469 (Cal. Feb. 7, 2013), the court ruled that, if a...more

Employment Flash - February 2013

by Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP on 2/26/2013

In This Issue: - Ohio Supreme Court Reverses Decision on Surviving Merger Entity’s Ability to Enforce Noncompetition Agreements - “Sweet” Decision for California Employers: Court Approves Time Rounding in Case...more

California Supreme Court Issues Mixed Decision in Mixed-Motive FEHA Employment Discrimination Case

by James W. Michalski | Holland & Knight LLP on 2/26/2013

The California Supreme Court's recent decision in a closely watched Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) case should be of interest to employers around the country, even though — or perhaps because — it does not provide an...more

Supreme Court Rules that a State Court Has Jurisdiction over a Legal Malpractice Claim Involving a Federal Patent Issue

by Paul Devinsky, Christopher M. Koepke | McDermott Will & Emery on 2/25/2013

The Supreme Court of the United States, in Gunn v. Minton, determined that a Texas state court had jurisdiction over a legal malpractice claim, even though resolving the claim required the state court to address an issue of...more

California Supreme Court Eliminates Damages in FEHA Discrimination Cases Where Employer Proves Mixed Motive Defense

by Byron Lau, Lena Ryan | Orrick - Global Employment Law Group on 2/25/2013

Earlier this month, the California Supreme Court issued a ruling clarifying details of the “mixed-motive” defense applicable to discrimination claims under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). Harris v....more

Supreme Court Holds That Patent Legal Malpractice Claims Do Not “Arise Under” The Patent Laws and May Be Heard in State Court

by Monte Cooper, Elizabeth Howard, Scott Lonardo | Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP on 2/22/2013

On February 20, 2013, the Supreme Court issued a decision addressing the critical question of where plaintiffs can or must sue when their claims implicate patent law but are not traditional patent law claims. See Gunn v....more

California Supreme Court Rules On Mixed Motive Defense To Discrimination Claims, But Large Verdicts Persist…

by Jacquelyn Ferry | Proskauer - California Employment Law on 2/22/2013

Wynona Harris, a bus driver for the City of Santa Monica (the City), alleged that she was fired because of her pregnancy in violation of the prohibition against sex discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing Act...more

Gunn v. Minton (2013)

by Kevin E. Noonan | McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP on 2/21/2013

A patent issue exerted its Circe-like effect on the Supreme Court again today in Gunn v. Minton, a decision overruling the Texas Supreme Court on the question of whether the existence of a patent issue in a legal malpractice...more

Fenwick Employment Brief - February 2013

by Daniel J. McCoy, Saundra Riley | Fenwick & West LLP on 2/21/2013

In This Issue: *FEATURE ARTICLES - Cal Supreme Court Refuses To Immunize Employers In Mixed-Motive Discrimination Cases, But Significantly Limits Remedies - Manager's Bias, Public Policy, And Defamation...more

California Supreme Court Clarifies Standard For “Mixed Motive” Defense To Employment Discrimination Claims

by Sarah Andropoulos, John Kennedy | Nossaman LLP on 2/19/2013

In a partial victory for employers, the California Supreme Court ruled in Harris v. City of Santa Monica that even when an employee proves that a discriminatory motive was a “substantial factor” in an adverse employment...more

California Supreme Court Issues Employer-Friendly Decision on Mixed-Motive Defense

by Ellen Cohen, Paula Weber | Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP on 2/13/2013

On February 7, 2013, the California Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in Harris v. City of Santa Monica. The California high court upheld the “mixed-motive” defense in cases brought under California’s Fair Employment...more

Legal Alert: California Supreme Court Issues "Mixed Motive" Decision Favorable To Employers

by Michelle Rapoport | FordHarrison on 2/13/2013

According to a new California Supreme Court opinion, once an employee claiming discrimination demonstrates that a discriminatory reason for his or her termination substantially motivated an adverse employment decision, the...more

Mixed Motive Case Provides Mixed Results For California Employers

by Beth P. Zoller | XpertHR - Partnered with LexisNexis on 2/13/2013

In Harris v. City of Santa Monica, +2013 Cal. LEXIS 941 (2013), the California Supreme Court considered a mixed motive discrimination case in which an employer had both lawful and unlawful reasons for terminating an employee....more

California Supreme Court Splits The Baby In Mixed-Motive Employment Discrimination Case

by Michael Newman | Barger & Wolen on 2/12/2013

In Wynona Harris v. City of Santa Monica, decided on February 7, 2013, the California Supreme Court addressed the following question...more

California Supreme Court's "Mixed Motive" Ruling May Have Major Impact on Fair Employment and Housing Claims

by Fisher & Phillips LLP on 2/12/2013

On February 7, 2013 the California Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, affirmed that backpay and reinstatement are not available remedies for a plaintiff under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) when an employer...more

California Supreme Court Upholds “Mixed Motive” Defense in Employment Discrimination Cases

by Esra Hudson, Alison White | Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP on 2/11/2013

In a long-awaited ruling issued Thursday, February 7, 2013, the California Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal's decision overturning a damages verdict against the City of Santa Monica, finding that employers may...more

California Supreme Court Decision Clarifies Standard for Defending FEHA Claims

by Keith Watts | Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart,... on 2/10/2013

Employers can finally exhale a small sigh of relief. On February 7, the California Supreme Court decided the issue of whether the “mixed-motive” defense applies to employment discrimination claims under the California...more

“Substantial” Benefit to Employers in California Supreme Court’s New Formulation of Mixed-Motive Defense (or, Ding Dong, the...

by Colette LeBon, Linda Shostak | Morrison & Foerster LLP on 2/8/2013

Today in Harris v. City of Santa Monica, the California Supreme Court, in a decision that favors employers, answered this question: “What is the trier of fact to do when it finds that a mix of discrimination and legitimate...more

California Supreme Court Rejects Damages, Back Pay, And Reinstatement Where Employer Proves Legitimate Mixed-Motive

by Keith Watts | Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart,... on 2/8/2013

On February 7, 2013, the California Supreme Court issued a long-awaited decision on whether the “mixed-motive” defense applies to employment discrimination claims under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA)....more

Home

Legal News

Find a Lawyer

Browse Subjects

Subscribe

Pro Services

For Reporters