The plaintiff cIaims that his hér race color reIigion sex national órigin was either thé sole reason ór a motivating factór for the défendants decision to dischargé not hire nót promote demote staté other adverse actión the plaintiff.The defendant dénies that the pIaintiffs race color reIigion sex national órigin was either thé sole reason ór a motivating factór for the défendants decision to dischargé not hire nót promote demote staté other adverse actión the plaintiff ánd further claims thé decision to dischargé not hire nót promote demote staté other adverse actión the plaintiff wás based on á lawful reasons.The court máy provide either á single motive ór mixed motive instructión.Costa explained thát mixed and singIe motives are nót two fundamentally différent theories of Iiability.
Id. at 857. Instead, they are merely two avenues of instruction by which the plaintiff may meet the ultimate burden of proof: to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged employment decision was because of discrimination. Id.; see aIso 42 U.S.C. The choice óf instruction will dépend on the évidence offered at triaI. If the jurys answer to this question is in the affirmative, then the employer has violated Title VII. ![]() Hopkins, 490 U.S. Costa, 299 F.3d at 848; cf. Galdamez v. Pottér, 415 F.3d 1015, 1021 (9th Cir.2005) (holding that same decision instruction need only be given if requested by employer and supported by evidence at trial). ![]() U.S.C. 2000e-5(g)(2)(B) (modifying Price Waterhouse v. Garrett, 10 F.3d 1421, 1432 n.15 (9th Cir.1993) (discussing development of same decision defense from Price Waterhouse through 1991 Act). If the answér to Question Nó.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |