Desert Palace, Inc., Dba Caesars Palace Hotel & Casino v. Catharina F. Costa (539 U.S. 90)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided June 9, 2003 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 539 U.S. 90 · 123 S. Ct. 2148
- Decided
- June 9, 2003
- Term
- October Term 2002
- Vote
- 9–0
- Majority author
- Justice Thomas
- Issue area
- Civil Rights
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party lost
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
Opinion excerpt
Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court. The question before us in this case is whether a plaintiff must present direct evidence of discrimination in order to obtain a mixed-motive instruction under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (1991 Act). We hold that direct evidence is not required. I A Since 1964, Title VII has made it an “unlawful employment practice for an employer... to discriminate against any individual. . . , because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” 78 Stat. 255, 42 U. S. C. §2000e-2(a)(1) (emphasis added). In Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U. S. 228 (1989), the Court considered whether an employment decision is made “because of” sex in a “mixed-motive” case, i. e., where both legitimate and illegitimate reasons motivated the decision. The Court concluded that, under §2000e-2(a)(l), an employer could “avoid a finding of liability ... by proving that it would have made the same decision even if it had not allowed gender to play such a role.” Id., at 244; see id., at 261, n. (White, J., concurring in judgment); id., at 261 (O’Connor, J., concurring in judgment). The Court was divided, however, over the predicate question of when the burden of proof may be shifted to an employer to prove the affirmative defense. Justice Brennan, writing for a plurality of four…
Excerpt of a 18,923-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.