DEFENSE · 42usc2000e-2:x-same-decision
(formerly `variant same-action-in-absence`) Employer proves it would have taken the same action in the absence of the impermissible motivating factor (partial defense limiting remedies) Partial affirmative defense under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g)(2)(B) to a § 2000e-2(m) mixed-motive violation: restricts remedies to declaratory/injunctive relief and attorney's fees, barring damages and reinstatement.
Exact element source
even though other factors also motivated the practice.Source:
docroot/ir/usc/title42.jsonl#title42_sec2000e-2; Unicode character offsets [11680:11734] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7b026a9ac957c5491602d868578271db8730b4c98650f1a4007b2e7430194c8b.Routes and case patterns
| Route | Definition | Merits instance blocks | Distinct merits cases | Examples (up to 3 cases per count group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unclassified route provisional; provisional (1 case) | no definition yet | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | Used only in non-merits blocks (1). Excluded context examples:Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa — 539 U.S. 90 (2003) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2003 — not reached · basis not recorded (42usc2000e-2: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-v1-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · rule-announced/merits · not counted |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa — 539 U.S. 90 (2003) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2003 — not reached (42usc2000e-2: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-v1-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Mixed-motive same-decision partial affirmative defense (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g)(2)(B)) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts rule-announced / merits claim: (a)(1),(m); party: defendant Desert Palace, Inc., dba Caesars Palace (petitioner); count: Title VII sex-discrimination claim tried to the jury (discipline and termination); subject: party=defendant Desert Palace, Inc., dba Caesars Palace (petitioner); count=Title VII sex-discrimination claim tried to the jury (discipline and termination) 2000e-5(g)(2)(B) limited-remedies defense (law side: `effect limits-remedy`): jury was instructed on it and awarded damages, but the Court only describes the defense and uses its wording as a textual argument. | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
Court interpretations
interpretation
In order to avail itself of the affirmative defense, the employer must “demonstrate] that [it] would have taken the same action in the absence of the impermissible motivating factor.”
Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa — 539 U.S. 90 (2003) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2003 (42usc2000e-2: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-v1-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed)
In order to avail itself of the affirmative defense, the employer must “demonstrate] that [it] would have taken the same action in the absence of the impermissible motivating factor.”Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/us_539.jsonl#/us/539/0090-01; Unicode character offsets [4084:4267] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9a7e4d9846d799473649658702ae2649d2f44f3694664d7d3e7eb291f31597df.(formerly `variant same-action-in-absence`) Employer proves it would have taken the same action in the absence of the impermissible motivating factor (partial defense limiting remedies) Partial affirmative defense under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g)(2)(B) to a § 2000e-2(m) mixed-motive violation: restricts remedies to declaratory/injunctive relief and attorney's fees, barring damages and reinstatement.