REPRESENTING UNIONS & EMPLOYEES SINCE 1936
facebook twitter linkedin youtube

Oakland: 510.625.9700 | Sacramento: 916.325.2100

California Employers Liable in Mixed Motive Discrimination Cases

March 19, 2013 by

A recent decision relevant to Employment Law is summarized here for both employees and employers who are interested in issues related to alleged discrimination.  In February 2013, the California Supreme Court issued an important decision clarifying the application of California’s anti-discrimination laws to cases where an employer takes adverse action against an employee for both legitimate and unlawful, discriminatory reasons – the so-called “mixed motive” case.  The Court held in Harris v.  City of Santa Monica that an employer whose adverse employment action was motivated by mixed motives will be liable for discrimination if the employee first proves discrimination was a “substantial factor motivating the adverse employment action.” However, if the employer proves it would have made the “same decision” for lawful reasons – that is, even without the discriminatory factor – then the employee cannot recover damages, back pay, or an order of reinstatement; the remedy in that case will be limited to a declaration of wrongdoing, an injunction against future discrimination, and an award of attorneys’ fees.

The case was brought by a probationary bus driver who was written up for not meeting standards for continued employment.  She then notified her supervisor that she was pregnant, and less than a week later she was terminated, along with other probationary drivers who were not meeting standards.  Harris sued the City, alleging discrimination on the basis of pregnancy.  The City asserted that it had a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for firing her.  The trial court judge instructed the jury that to find the City liable it need only find that the employee has proved pregnancy was “a motivating factor/reason for the discharge.” The jury found in favor of Harris by a vote of nine to three that pregnancy had been a “motivating reason” for the discharge.  The City appealed, arguing that the trial court judge gave the wrong instruction and should have instructed the jury that an employer is not liable if a legitimate reason, standing alone, would have induced the employer to make the same decision.

Advocates for both employees and employers have claimed victory in the case.  Employees are relieved that the Court did not require employees to prove that discrimination is the sole reason for an employer’s adverse action and rejected the argument that a same-decision showing by an employer is a complete defense to liability in mixed motive cases.  Employers, on the other hand, are relieved that an employee cannot recover damages in mixed motive cases if the employer proves it would have made the same decision in any event.

Beeson, Tayer and Bodine (BT&B) has an Employment Law practice with experienced attorneys who can help employees navigate appropriate actions if they believe their civil rights have been violated by their employer.  To learn more about employment law that protects civil rights you can visit the Discrimination section at the BT&B website.

The material on this website is provided by Beeson, Tayer & Bodine for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult with their own legal counsel before acting on any of the information presented. Some of the articles are updated periodically, and are marked with the date of the last update. Again, readers should consult with their own legal counsel for the most current information and to obtain professional advice before acting on any of the information presented.