DEFENSE · 42usc2000e-2:x-same-decision
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.All variants
| Variant | Description | Merits instance blocks | Distinct cases | Example cases (up to 3 per group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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) | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 0 | No annotation uses in this snapshot |
| Unspecified variant | No variant assigned in the database. | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /us/539/0090-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2003 — rule-announced/merits |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Variant | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| /us/539/0090-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2003 | 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 variant | 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.”
/us/539/0090-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2003
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.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.