Caesars Palace in Las Vegas employed Catharina Costa as a warehouse worker and heavy-equipment operator. She was the only woman in this job and in her local Team- sters bargaining unit. Eventually, Costa was fired after an altercation with a male co-worker.When Costa sued for sex discrimination, Caesars contended her termination stemmed from Costa’s lengthy disciplinary record. Costa argued she had been repeatedly singled out for discipline because she is a woman. She pointed out that the male co-worker she fought with received only a five-day suspension and that she was often disciplined for tardiness, absenteeism, and offensive language but her male co-workers were not.
Join us this fall in San Francisco for the California Employment Law Update conference, a 3-day event that will teach you everything you need to know about new laws and regulations, and your compliance obligations, for the year ahead—it’s one-stop shopping at its best.
Employer Appeals Jury Verdict
A jury ruled for Costa, awarding her $364,377, which was later reduced to $264,377. The jury found that Caesars had mixed motives for firing her—that is, she had a disciplinary problem and she was disciplined unequally because she was a woman. Caesars appealed, arguing that when there are mixed motives for firing someone—that is, both lawful and discriminatory reasons—the employee must present direct evidence—such as testimony that a key decisionmaker made a biased statement or a company memorandum indicating the decision was made for illegal reasons—to prove the employer’s motive was discriminatory. All Costa had was indirect, or circumstantial, evidence that she was treated differently from male employees. But the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers California, upheld the jury verdict, ruling that Costa wasn’t required to present direct evidence of bias merely because the employer allegedly had mixed motives for terminating her.
High Court Eases Burden on Employees
Now the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed with the Ninth Circuit and Costa. The court explained that an employer is liable for discrimination when an employee demonstrates an illegal motive resulted in an adverse employment decision, even though other factors may have contributed to the employer’s actions. And, the court said, in a mixed-motives case, an employee isn’t required to have direct evidence of discrimination. Finally, the employer can only avoid liability by proving it would have made the same decision in the absence of the discriminatory motive.
Erasing Bias from Decision-Making
Before this ruling, several federal appeals courts other than the Ninth Circuit required employees in mixed-motives cases to prove bias with direct evidence. By eliminating this requirement, the Supreme Court’s ruling makes it easier for juries to hold employers liable when an employee asserts there were both legal and illegal reasons for an employment decision.To avoid trouble, thoroughly document the legitimate reasons for your employment actions. Also, provide comprehensive training for managers on their responsibility to treat all employees equally regardless of race, sex, age, or other protected factors and to refrain from making comments that could indicate bias in their decision-making.