|
Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins,
490 U.S. 228 (1981)
The Plaintiff in this case, Ann Hopkins, was a senior manager in an office
of the Defendant when she was proposed for partnership. She was neither offered
a partnership position or denied one, but rather was held for reconsideration
the next year. When the next year came, the partners refused to repropose her
for partnership. Hopkins sued in federal court under Title VII, charging sex discrimination.
The district court found for the Plaintiff on the question of liability, holding
that the Defendant had unlawfully discriminated against the Plaintiff by giving
credence to partners’ comments about her that resulted from sex stereotyping.
The District of Columbia Circuit affirmed. Both Courts held that an employer who
has allowed a discriminatory motive to play a part in an employment decision must
prove by clear and convincing evidence that it would have made the same decision
in the absence of discrimination and that the Defendant had not carried this burden.
The Defendant appealed to the Supreme Court. The high Court took the case and
reversed the lower courts. The Court held that a Title VII defendant could avoid
liability in a mixed-motive case by proving, by a preponderance of the evidence,
that it would have taken the adverse employment action in the absence of the unlawful
discriminatory motive. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts erred by requiring
the Defendant to make its proof by clear and convincing evidence. This test was
subsequently adopted by all federal courts in ADEA cases.
The Civil Rights Act of 1991 altered the Price Waterhouse mixed-motive
standard in Title VII cases. The CRA of 1991 provides that an unlawful employment
practice is established when the Plaintiff demonstrates that race, color, national
origin or sex was a motivating factor for any employment practice, even though
other factors also motivated the practice. Under the 1991 CRA, even if the defendant
proves that it would have made the same decision absent the discriminatory motive,
the plaintiff may receive declaratory and injunctive relief as well as attorney’s
fees and costs.
With this modification, the question arose of whether Congress intended to
alter the Price Waterhouse test for claims brought under the ADEA as well.
The few federal courts which have addressed this question have said, "No,"
and have continued to apply the original Price Waterhouse standard to age
discrimination mixed-motive cases. See Doll v. Brown, 75 F.3d 1200
(7th Cir. 1996); Hutson v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 63 F.3d
771 (8th Cir. 1995).
- Back to Supreme Court Cases -
|
