Last month, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a plaintiff must present direct evidence of discrimination in order to obtain a mixed-motive instruction under Title VII, as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991.
Direct Evidence Not Required in Mixed Motive Case
Last month, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a plaintiff must present direct evidence of discrimination in order to obtain a mixed-motive instruction under Title VII, as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991. <i>Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa</i>, 2003 WL 21310219 (U.S. June 9, 2003) The Court unanimously held that direct evidence is not required.
By
Merrick T. RosseinThis premium content is locked for New York Real Estate Law Reporter subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN New York Real Estate Law Reporter
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already have an account? Sign In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate access, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or call 1-877-256-2473.
