Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa
539 U.S. 90 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff in a Title VII mixed-motive discrimination case is not required to present direct evidence of discrimination to prove that a protected characteristic was a motivating factor in an adverse employment action. Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to obtain a mixed-motive jury instruction.
Facts:
- Catharina Costa was the only woman employed as a warehouse worker and heavy equipment operator at Desert Palace, Inc. (Caesar's Palace).
- Costa was also the only woman in her local Teamsters bargaining unit.
- Over time, Costa experienced escalating disciplinary sanctions and alleged she was treated less favorably than her male colleagues, was stalked by a supervisor, and was subject to sex-based slurs.
- Costa was involved in a physical altercation in an elevator with a male co-worker, Herbert Gerber.
- Following the altercation, Desert Palace terminated Costa's employment.
- Herbert Gerber, who had a clean disciplinary record prior to the incident, received only a 5-day suspension for his role in the same altercation.
Procedural Posture:
- Catharina Costa sued Desert Palace, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada for sex discrimination under Title VII.
- At trial, the District Court gave the jury a 'mixed-motive' instruction over Desert Palace's objection that Costa had not presented direct evidence of discrimination.
- The jury found for Costa, and the District Court entered judgment in her favor.
- Desert Palace, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. A three-judge panel initially vacated the judgment, agreeing that direct evidence was required.
- The Ninth Circuit then reheard the case en banc and reinstated the District Court's judgment, holding that the Civil Rights Act of 1991 abrogated any direct evidence requirement.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a circuit split on the issue.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Civil Rights Act of 1991 require a plaintiff to present direct evidence of discrimination in order to receive a mixed-motive jury instruction in a Title VII case?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Thomas
No. The Civil Rights Act of 1991 does not require a plaintiff to present direct evidence of discrimination to receive a mixed-motive instruction. The plain text of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(m) unambiguously states that a plaintiff need only 'demonstrate' that an employer used a forbidden consideration, and the statute does not mention or require direct evidence. Congress defined 'demonstrates' as meeting the 'burdens of production and persuasion,' without specifying the type of evidence required. The conventional rule of civil litigation, which allows proof by a preponderance of the evidence through either direct or circumstantial evidence, applies in Title VII cases. The Court has long recognized the utility and persuasiveness of circumstantial evidence, even in criminal cases which have a higher burden of proof, and there is no reason to depart from that principle here.
Concurring - Justice O'Connor
Yes, I agree with the Court's opinion that the District Court did not abuse its discretion. While I previously concluded in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins that a direct evidence standard was appropriate to shift the burden of persuasion in mixed-motive cases, the Civil Rights Act of 1991 codified a new evidentiary rule. This new statutory framework, specifically § 2000e-2(m), governs mixed-motive cases arising under Title VII and does not impose a direct evidence requirement.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the evidentiary standard for plaintiffs in mixed-motive Title VII cases, resolving a circuit split that had developed in the wake of Price Waterhouse. By rejecting the direct evidence requirement, the Court lowered the evidentiary bar for plaintiffs to get their cases to a jury. This holding makes it easier for employees to prevail in discrimination claims where an employer had both legitimate and discriminatory reasons for its actions, as plaintiffs can now rely entirely on a pattern of circumstantial evidence. The ruling empowers juries to find discrimination based on the totality of the circumstances rather than requiring a 'smoking gun' admission from the employer.
Unlock the full brief for Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa