The H onorab le J oseph S. V an Bo kkelen, ofthe N o rt hern  Dis t ri c tofI ndi ana , s i t t i ng by des i gna t i on.



## In the 

# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 08

- 4010 K ATHLE EN A . S ERWAT KA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. R OC KWELL A U T OM A T I ON, I NC ., D ef endant-Appellant.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the E astern Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No . 06 C1012

—L ynnA delm an, Judge .
A RGUED M AY 14, 2009

— D ECIDED J AN UA RY 15, 2010

Befo re R OV NERa nd E VANS, C ircu it Judges , a nd V AN B OKKELEN, D i s t r i ctJudg e .  R OV NER, Cir cu i tJudg e . K at h lee n A . Serw at ka filed su it aga i nst he r f or m erem plo yer, Rock w el l A utom at ion, I nc. ( “Rockwell”), und erthe A m er i cans with Dis abi l i ti es A ct, 42 U .S.C . §§ 1 21 01 , et seq
. ( the “A DA ”) , al l eging tha t2 N o. 08

- 4010 Ro ck wel l di sc ha r g ed he r bec au se i t r eg ar ded he r a s be i ng disabl ed, despi te her abi l i ty to perf or m the es se nti al functi ons of h er job
. A j ury agr eed with S er w atk a, answ er i ng “Yes ” t o the fol l owing questi on o n t h e speci al ver dictf or m : “Di d defendant t er m i nate pla i nti ffd ue to i ts perce p tio n that she was subs tanti al l y l i m i ted i n her abi l i ty to w al k o r st an d ? ” R. 115 at 1. But the j ury al so an sw er e d “ Y es ” t o t h is follo w -u p qu es tio n : “W ou ld defe nd ant hav e di schar ged pl ainti ffi fi t di d not bel i eve sh e w as su b st an tia lly lim ite d in h er ab i l i t y to w alk orst and, but ev er ythi ng el se re m ai ne d t h e sam e?” R. 11 5 at 1- 2. The dis tr i ct c ourttr eat ed the j ury’ s a nsw er s t o these tw o q u es tio n s a s a m i x e d -m ot ive find in g, th at is, a fi nd i ng tha t Roc kwell ’ s d ec isio n to fi re S er w atk a was th e p ro d u c t o f bo th law fu l an d u n law fu l m ot ive s. Se rwatka v. R ockw el l Autom ation, Inc. , 5 8 3 F
. Sup p. 2d 9 9 4 , 9 9 6 ( E. D. W is. 20 08 ). Se ege ne r al l y Pr i ceWat e rhouse v . Hopki ns , 49 0 U. S
. 2 28 , 1 09 S
. Ct
. 1 775 ( 1989). On app eal, Rock w el l has taken i ssu e w ith th is charac terizatio n of the j ury’s spe ci alv er di ct, butwe ha ve no r ea so n t o que st i o n the di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s un de r s t a nd i ng o fwh a tthe j ur y f o un d, a nd , i n any eve nt, Rock w el l di d not m ake thi s co ntenti on bel ow in i ts post- tr i albr i efo pp osing S er w atk a’s reques t f orr el i efbas ed on the j ury’ s v er dict
. R. 12 2; see, e . g. , Int’ l P rod. Spec iali sts, Inc. v. Schwing A m . , Inc. , 58 0 F
. 3d 587, 59 8 (7th C ir. 2009) (argum en ts not m ad e to th e d istri ct cou rt ar e wai ve d)
. The mor e per tine ntissue i s whethe r the j ury’ s m i xed-m oti ve fi nd i ng ent i tl es Se rwatka to j ud gm en t in her favor and to the relie f th at th e d istri ct cou rt awar ded he r . Ro ck wel l co nt en ds tha t i t do es no t, g i ve n theN o. 08

- 4010 3 pr o vi si o ns o fthe ADA and the S upr eme Co ur t’ s r ec en t dec i si o n in G ross v . F B L F in
. Se rvs . , Inc. , 12 9 S
. Ct. 23 43 ( 2009 )
. W e a gr ee . O u r anal ysi s o fthi s i ssue begins with P rice Wa terho use . I n P rice Wa t e r h o use, a plurality ofthe Su p rem e C ou rt r ec o g ni zed thata n e m pl o y ermay vi o l at e Ti tl e VI Io fthe C ivil R igh ts A c t of 19 64 , 42 U .S.C . §§ 2 00 0e , et
. s eq . (“T itle VI I ”) , wh en i t r el i es upon one o fthe grou n d s that th e s t a t u t e f o rb i d s e mp l o y e r s fr o m c o n s i d e r i n gi n e mplo ym ent deci si ons ( i .e., rac e, co l or, r el i gi on, se x, o r nati onalori gi n), ev en i fthe pros cribed cr i ter i on was not the s ol e r eas on f orthe em plo yer ’ s d eci si on. “Titl e VI I[ w as] m ea ntt o c o nde m n eve n tho se de ci si o ns b as ed o n a m i xture ofl egi ti m ate and i l l egi ti m ate co nsi derat i ons. ” 4 90 U. S
. a t 24 1, 1 09 S
. Ct
. a t 17 85
. Buti n r ec o g ni ti o n o fthe b ala n c e t h at C on gr es s s tr u c k b et w ee n elim in at in g in vid io u s e mpl o y me n td i s c r i mi n a t i o n a n d p r e s e r v i n ga n e mpl o y er ’ s p r er o g at i ve t o e m pl o y who m ev eri t wi sh es , the Court’ s m aj or i ty al so hel d th at a n em plo yerwould bea r n o liab ility for a m ix ed -m ot ive em p loy m en t d ec isio n if it w oul d hav e m ad e the sa m e deci si on absent the i l l ega l m o t i v e. Id. a t2 4 2 , 2 4 4

- 4 5 , 2 5 8 , 1 0 9 S
. Ct
. a t1 7 8 6 , 1 7 8 7

- 88, 1795 ( plur alit y); i d. at26 1 n. *, 10 9 S
. Ct. at17 96 n* ( W hi te, J., co n c u rrin g in th e jud gm en t); i d. at 261, 279, 109 S. Ct. at 179 6, 1 80 6 ( O’ Conno r, J
. , c o nc ur r i ngi n the j udg m en t)
. The Co ur ta s s i g ne d the b ur de n o fp e r s ua s i o n o n tha t poi nt to the em plo yer . Thus, o nce a p laintiffhas prove n th at a p ro sc rib ed cr ite rion p lay ed a m ot iva tin g ro le in the e m plo yer ’ s a dvers e deci si on, the em ploye r ass um es th e bu rd en o fpr o vingb y a pr epo nde r an ce o fthe evi dence that it w oul d have m ade the sam e deci si on4 N o. 08

- 4010

eve n i fthe i l l ega l f act orhad pla yed no ro l e in i ts d ec isio n m ak in g. Se ei d. at 2 58, 109 S. C t. at 1795 ( p lurali ty); i d. a t 2 59

- 69 , 10 9 S
. Ct
. a t 17 95 ( W hi te , J
. , c o nc ur r i ngi n the j u d gm en t); i d. at27 6, 10 9 S . C t. at 1 80 4 (O ’C on n or , J. , con cu rri ng i n th e j ud gm en t). Altho ug h P rice Wa terho use d e a lt s ole ly w ith T itle V II, low er co u rt s, in c lu d in g ou r ow n, ha ve ap p lied its p rin c iple s t o case s br ought und ero th eranti

- disc ri m i nati on st at u te s. SeeM cN utt v. B d. o f Trus te es of U
. of Ill
. , 14 1 F
. 3d 70 6, 7 0 7( 7 th C i r . 1 9 9 8 )
. T h e AD A i s o fc o u r s e a m o ng t h os e s ta tu te s. See P a rker v . Co lum bia P ictu res Indu s. , 20 4 F
. 3 d 3 2 6 , 3 3 6

- 3 7( 2 d C i r . 2000 ) ( S o t o may o r, J
. ) ( c o l l
. ADA case s a pp l yi ng P r i c e Wa terho use meth o do l o g y, i nc l udi ng Fos t e rv. Ar t hurAnde rs e n, LL P , 16 8 F
. 3d 1029 , 10 33- 34 ( 7th C ir. 19 99 )); but see Hedric kv. W. Reserv e C a se Sys. , 35 5 F.3 d 4 4 4 , 4 57(6t h C ir. 20 04 ) (p lain tiff m u st sh ow th at h is orherdi sabi l i ty w as the s ol e r eason fo r the a dvers e em p loym en t action). W h en C on gr es s e n ac te d th e C ivil R ig h t s A c t o f 19 91 , i t too k tw o acti ons w i th r espectto the then- re cent P ri ce Wa terho use deci si on that hav e par ti cul arr el evance her e. Se c tio n 10 7 ( a) o f th e A c t a d d ed a p ro vis ion to T itle V II whi ch ex pr es sly dee m ed unl awful an y em pl o y m en t pr ac ti ce mot i va te d b y a pe r so n’ s r ac e, c o l o r, r el i g i o n, s ex , or n at ion al or igin, “ev en th ou gh ot h er fac to rs als o m ot ivate d th e p ractice,” th ereby cod ifying th at asp ect of P ri ce Wa ter ho use. P. L. 102- 166, 10 5 S tat
. 10 71, 10 75, co difi ed at 4 2 U
. S
. C
. § 2 0 0 0 e - 2 ( m )
. B u tw h e r e a s th e S u p r e me Court’ s ho l ding re liev ed an em plo yero fal l l i abi l i ty f or a m i xed-m oti ve deci si on o nce i t co nvi n c ed the f actfi nd erN o. 08

- 4010 5 th ati t woul d ha ve t ak en the s ame a dve r se e m pl o y m en t acti on i n the abse nce o fthe i l l ega l m oti ve, Congr ess amende d Ti tl e VI It o a ut hori ze l i m i te d r el i eft o the pl aint i ffi n s uchc as es . S pec i fi ca l l y, s ec ti o n 107 ( b) o fthe A ct a dd ed a s eco nd pro vi si on t o the s tatute s tat in g that i n mi x e d

- mo t i v e c a s e s , wh e n a n e mpl o y e r h a s s h o wn that i t would have ta ken the sa m e actio n i n the abse nce of the il le g a l m otive, a cou rt m ay aw ard the p lai nt iff both decl ar ato ryand i nj uncti ve re lief, al ong w i th her att or ney’ s fees and cos ts, but m ay not aw ar d dam age s no r o r de r the p l a i nt i ffh i r e d, r e i ns t a t e d t o h e r f o r mer posi ti on, orpro m ote d. 105 St at. at10 75- 76, co difi ed at 42 U
. S. C
. § 2000e-5(g)(2) (B). The enf or cem ent pr ovi si on o fthe A DA i ncor pora tes cer tai n ofthe re m edi es provi ded f orem plo ym ent di sc rim in at ion in T itle V II: T h e p ow er s, re m ed ies , an d p ro c ed u re s s et fo r t h in sect ions 2000 e-4, 2000e-5, 2000e-6, 2000 e-8, and 2000e-9 sh all b e t h e p ow er s , r e m ed ies , an d p ro c ed u re s t h is subchapterpro vi des to
. . . any perso n a lleg i ng di scr i m i na ti o n o n th e ba si s o f di sabi l i ty i n vi o l at i o n o fa ny provi si on o fthi s chapte r . . . co ncer ni ng em plo ym ent. 42 U
. S. C. § 12117
. A m ong the provi si ons ofTi tl e VI Icr oss re fer enced i s sect i on 2000 e- 5, w hi ch, i n re l evantpartand as w e h av e jus t n ot ed , au th or ize s a c o u r t t o a w ar d ce rt ain typ e s o fr e l i e ft o a p l a i nt i ffb a s e d o n a mi xe d- mot i ve fi nd i ng. I n l i g h t o f th e j u r y ’ s mi x e d

- mo t i v e fi n d i n g h e r e , a nd sect i on 12117 ’ s cro ss- re fer ence to the r em edi es author i zed b y T itle VI I, the dist ri ct c ourtco ncl ud ed that Se rwatka6 N o. 08

- 4010

was e nt i tl ed to no da m ag es, b utwas e nt i tl ed to the othe r sort s o fr el i efautho ri zed byse cti on 2 000e

5( g) ( 2) ( B)( i )
. 58 3 F. S up p. 2d 99 4. The co urt gr anted Se rwatka decl ar ato ryr el i efi n its j ud gm ent o rder, wh i ch n ot ed thatherdi schar ge had been m oti vate d i n partby R oc kw ell’s p er c ep tio n th at sh e w as d isa b led
. Id. at99 6- 97, 10 00 ; R. 1 34
. I t al so g r an te d he r i nj unc ti ve r el i efi n the f o r m o fa di r ec ti ve tha t Rockw el l pl ac e a co py o fthe j ud gm ent in Se rwatka’ s per sonnelfi l e. 58 3 F
. S up p. 2 d at 996- 97, 10 00. The co urt f ound fur therthatS er w atk a was enti tl ed to an aw ar d ofat torney’ s fees and cos ts. I t r easo ne d tha t he r s ui t ha d “ so m e m er i t, ” i n view ofthe j u ry ’s m ix ed -m ot ive find in g, an d h ad “s e r v e d th e p u b lic p u rp os e o f d isc ou ra gin g d isc ri m in at ion in e m p loy m en t.” 583 F
. S up p. 2 d a t9 9 8
. “ Pl a i nt i ffa l s o o b t a i ne d s om e, alt h ough m i ni m al, non- m onet ar y r el i ef
. ” Id. But gi ven th e m o des t natur e o fthe r el i efS er wat k a ha d won an d th e lack ofeviden ce th at R oc kw ellbore any “un w arran ted anim us ” to w a r d h er or had enga ged i n a p attern o f d i s a b i l i ty d i s c r i mi n a t i o n, th e c o u r t f o u n d th a t sh e w as not enti tl ed to fees f or a ll o fthe ti m e herat torneys h ad sp en t li tig at in g th e ca se n or to all o fh e r c o st s. Id. A fter determ in in g t h at Ser w at ka h ad rea so n ab ly i ncurr ed fees and cost s in the tot alam ount o f$1 53, 290. 54, i d. a t 99 9, the c o ur t r edu ce d tha t to ta l b y e i g hty pe r ce nt a nd a wa r de d he r fe e s a nd c o s t s i n the a mou nt o f $3 0,6 58 .11 , i d. at10 00. Ro ck wel l ’ s appeal c ha l l en g es b o ththe de cl ar at o r y a nd i njuncti ve re l i efthatthe dist ri ct c ourtgr anted to Se rwatka as w el l as the aw ard o f fe es and cost s. Despi te th e j ury’s fi nd ing th at R ockw ell ’s perce p tion of Serw atka’sN o. 08

- 4010 7 l i m i tat i ons pla yed so m e r ol e in i ts deci si on to di schar ge he r, th e co m pan y co nt en ds th at th e addi ti o na l f ind i ng that i t would have te rm i nated Se rwatka re gar dle ss ofthat perce pti on co m pel s the ent ryo fj ud gm en t in i ts f avo r r a the r tha n S e r wa t k a ’ s . R o c k we l l a r g ue s tha tthe mi xe dm ot i v e a n a l y sis th at th e d ist ric t c ou rtrelie d on as a b as is f o r i t s de c i s i on to gra ntS e r wa t k a l i mi t e d r e l i e fi s i na pp lica b le t o t h e A D A . I t ra ise s o th e r a r g u m en ts as w ell in i t s ch a l l e ng e to th e f o r ms o fr e l i e ftha tthe c o ur ta wa r de d, buti n v i ew o fthe S upr eme Co ur t’ s o pi ni o n i n G ross , deci ded sho rt l y a fter w e hear d o ra l ar gum ent in thi s ca se, th e appl i cabi l i tyo fthe mix ed- m o ti ve fr am ew orki s th e onl y a rgum ent that we need to address
. Gro ss h eld th at be c au se th e A ge D isc rim in at ion in Em plo ym ent Act, 29 U
. S. C. §§ 621 ets eq . ( “A DE A ”), lack s th e l an g ua g e f o und in Ti tl e VI Ie xpr es sly r ec o g ni zing m i xed-m oti ve cl ai m s, such cl ai m s a re not authori zed by th e AD EA
. Al th o ug h s uchl an g uage was a l so mis sing f ro m the pre- 1991 ve rs i on of T i tl e VI Ithatthe Court had appl i ed i n P rice Wa terho use, the Co urt f o und i t si g ni fi ca nt that i n the w ake o fi ts P rice Wa terho use deci si on, Congr ess ha d a men de d T i t l e V I It o e xp l i c i t l y au tho r i z e mi xe dm ot ive d isc rim in at ion c laim s. See§ 2000 e- 2( m )
. Congr ess ha d a l s o sp e c i fi e d a l i mi t e d s e to fr e med i e s f o r s uc h mi xe dm ot ive c l a i ms i n s e c t i o n 2 0 0 0 e - 5 ( g ) ( 2 ) ( B)
. Bu tCo ng r e ss had not s i m i l ar l y a m en d ed t h e AD EA
. I ts f ai l ure to do so sugge ste d to the Cour t that Congr ess h ad deci ded notto au thor i ze m i xed-m oti ve cl ai m s in age di scr i m i nati on ca se s. 12 9 S
. Ct
. a t 23 49
. Co ns eque nt l y, the b ur den

sh i ftingfr amewor ktha t th e Cou r t had s etf o r thi n P ri ce Wat e rhou se d i d n otap p ly in A D E A ca se s. Id. at23 49- 50. The g o ve r ni ngs ta nda r d i ns te ad d eri ve d fr o m the8 N o. 08

- 4010 l anguage o fthe A DE A thatf orbid s an em plo yerfro m t ak in g a d ve rs e a c tio n ag ain st an y in d ivid u al “ b e c a u s eof su c h ind ivid u a l ’ s ag e.” 29 U .S.C . § 62 3(a )(1) (em p h as is supp l i ed). “The words ‘ because o f’ m ean ‘ by re aso n of : o n acc ou nt of.’ T hu s, th e ordin ary m ean ing of th e A D E A ’s re quir em ent that an em plo yerto ok advers e a cti on
‘ be ca us e o f’ ag e i s th at ag e was th e ‘ r ea so n’ th at the empl o y e r d e c i d e d t o a c t
. ” 1 2 9 S
. C t
. a t2 3 5 0 ( c i t a t i o ns om i tte d). I n or der t o preva i l o n a c l ai m o fdi sparate tr eat m ent under the AD EA , then, “a plain ti ffm ust pro ve that age was the ‘but- f or ’ cause o fthe em plo yer ’ s a dvers e deci si on. ” Id. ; s e eal s o i d. at23 51, 23 52. In otherw or ds, pro of that the pl ai nti ff’ s a ge w as a m oti vating f acto r, but not a deter m i nati ve f acto r, i n the em plo yer ’ s deci si on, will not su ffice to es ta b lish th e e m p loy er ’s lia b ility
. Se ei d. at23 52. A l though the G ross de ci si o n const r ue d the ADEA , the i m port ance that the c ourtat tached to the e xpress i ncor pora tio n of th e m ix ed -m ot ive fram e w o r k in to T itle V II sugge sts thatwh en ano theranti

- disc ri m i nati on s tatute lac ks co m p ar ab le lan gu ag e, a m ix ed -m ot ive cla im w i l l notbe vi abl e unde r that sta tute. Our r ecentdeci si on i n F ai r l ey v. An dre ws , wh i c h de a l twi th a Fi rs tAmen dm ent c l ai m br ought un d er 42 U
. S. C. § 1 983, r efl ects that u n d er st an d in g of th e Su p re m e C ou rt ’s d ec isio n : “ G ross . . . ho l ds th at, unl es s a st atut e . . . pr o vi des o th er wi se , de m o nstr ating b u t- f orcausa ti on i s par t o fthe pla i nti ff’ s bur den i n al l sui ts und er federa l l aw . ” 578 F. 3d 518, 52 5- 26 (7 t h C ir. 20 09 ), pe t i t i on f orc e r t
. f i l e d ( U
. S. Dec. 21 , 20 09) (N o. 09-745). W he th erthe ADA pe rm its a mix ed- m o ti ve c l ai m ( an d cor re sponding re l i ef ) ther ef or e turns o n the la nguage ofN o. 08

- 4010 9

Pursuant to the A D A Am endm ents Act of2008, Cong res s has 1 m ade s ubs t ant i al c han g es to t he AD A w hi c h t ook eff ec ton J anu ar y 1 , 20 09
. Am ong othe r re vi s i ons , the l ang uage ofthe statu te ha s b e e n m od ifi ed to p ro hib it an em p loy er from d iscrim ina ting ag ain st an in d iv id u al “ o n t h e b a sis o f disabil ity. ” 42 U. S. C. § 12 11 2( a) ( 20 09 ) (em phas i s s uppl i ed)
. W he the r “onthe bas i s of” m ea ns a nythi ng di ff er en tfro m “be c aus e of, ” a nd w he the r this or an y oth er rev ision to the statu te m atter s in t e r m s o fthe v iabi l i t y ofa m i x e d- m ot i ve c l a i m un de r the ADA, ar e notque s t i ons thatwe ne ed t o c ons id er in this appe al
. The am endm ents took eff ectnearl y a y ea r a fte r this cas e was tr ie d in February 2008 and nearly f our and one- halfyears after Se rwat ka was di s c har ge d i n J une 20 04
. To the e xt en tthatan y ofthe r evi s i ons m i ghts uppor ta m i xe d- m ot i ve cl ai m wher e the language o fthe pr i orve r s i ono fthe s t a t ut e di d n ot, the y presum ptivel y w ould not app ly to condu ct w hich took p lace pri or t o the i r eff ec t i v e dat e abs en ta c l ea r i ndi c at i on f ro m Congr es s thatthe c han ge s wer e i nt en ded t o appl y r et ro ac t i vel y. S ee L an dg raf

v . U S I F i l m P rods. , 511 U
. S. 244, 280, 114 S. Ct. 1483, 1 5 0 5 (19 9 4 ); Ki e s e w e t t e rv. Cat e rpi l l e rInc ., 2 9 5 Fed. A pp x. 850, 8 5 1 (7t h C ir . 20 0 8 ). the s tatute a nd the prese nce o r abse nce of text akin to that o fTi tl e VI Iwhi cha utho r i ze s m i xe d- m o ti ve c l ai m s. The ve r si o n o fthe ADA a ppl i cabl e to thi s ca se i n r el ev an t part provi des that“[ n]o co ver ed en tit y s hal l di scr i m i nate aga i nst a qual i fi ed i nd i vi du alwith a di sabi l i ty b e c a use of the di sab i l i t y o fs uc h i nd i v i du a l i n r e g a r d t o j o b a ppli cati on pro cedures, the hi ring, advancem ent, o r discharg e o fem plo yee s, em plo yee co m pensa t i o n, j ob t r ai ni ng, and otherte rm s, co nd i ti ons, and priv i l ege s o fem plo ym en t.” 42 U
. S. C
. § 12112 (a ) (2008) (em p ha sis sup p li ed ). 1 ( The t er m “ di sabi li ty,” o fc o ur se , i s defi ne d t o i n-10 N o. 08

- 4010

T h e A D E A , see29 U.S
. C. § 626( b), i nst ead cros s- referenc es 2 the power s , r em edi es , an d pro c edur es ofthe Fa i r Labor St and a rd s A ct, w h ic h its el f la ck s a m ix ed -m o tiv es p ro v isi o n, see 29 U.S. C. § 215. c l ud e p e r c e i v e d a s we l l a s a c t ua ll i mi t a t i o ns . 4 2 U. S
. C. § 1 2 1 0 2(3). ) G ross make s cl ea r tha t i n the abs en ce o fa ny addi ti o na l t ext b r i ng i ngmix ed- m o ti ve c l ai m s wi th i n the re ach o fthe sta tute, the sta tute’s “be cause of” l anguage dem an ds proo fthata f orbi dd en co nsi derat i on

— he r e, the em plo yee ’ s per cei ved di sabi l i ty

— w as a “b ut f or ” ca use of the ad verse ac tion com p lai ne d of. The r e i s no pr o vi si o n in the g o ve r ni ngv er si o n o fthe A D A ak in to T itle V II’s m ix ed -m ot ive p ro vis ion
. See P a rker, sup ra , 204 F.3d at33 6 ( “ t h e A D A inc lu d es n o e x p licit m ix ed -m ot ive p ro vis ion ” ) ; Fo ster, sup ra , 16 8 F
. 3d at 1033 ( “Congr ess o m i tte d the A D A fr om the pu rv i ew o f S ec ti o n 1 0 7 [ ( a ) [ o f th e C i v i l R i g h t s Ac t [ o f 1 9 9 1 ] ” )
. The cl ose st thi ng to such a provi si on i s sect i on 1211 7( a) , wh i ch as we h a v e n o t e d ma k e s a v a i l a b l e t o AD A p l a i n t i ff s the sa m e “ p ow er s, re m ed ies , an d p r o c e d u re s s et fort h in sect i o ns 2 0 0 0 e - 4 , 2 0 0 0 e - 5 , 2 0 0 0 e - 6 , 2 0 0 0 e - 8 , a nd 2 0 0 0 e - 9” for T itle V II p lain tiffs . In th at res p ec t, th e A D A is differ ent fro m the A D E A , which l acks a si m i l arcr oss re fer ence. Yet, al though s ecti on 1 2117 ( a) cr oss - re fer ences

2 the rem edies s e t f o r th i n s e c t i o n 2 0 0 0 e - 5 ( g ) ( 2 ) ( B) f o r mi xe dm oti ve case s, i t doe s no t cr oss - re fer ence the provis i on of Titl e VII, section 200 0e-2(m ), w hich rend ers em p loyers lia ble for m ix ed -m ot ive em p loy m en t d ec isio n s. See J o hnL. Fly n n, N ot e, M ixe d-M ot i veCa u s at i on Undert heADA:N o. 08

- 4010 11 Linked St atute s, Fuzzy Th inking, and C le ar Sta te m ents , 83 Ge o . L. J
. 2 0 0 9 , 2 0 4 2 ( 1 9 9 5 ) ( “ Th e mo t i v a t i ngf a c t o r a men dm ent [ to Tit l e VI I] is n ot a power, r em edy, o r proce du re ; i t i s, i nstea d, a s ubstanti ve sta nd ar d ofl i abi lity. ”)
. Li ke th e A D E A, th e A D A r e n d e r s e mp l o y e r s l i a b l e f o r e mp loy m en t d ec isio n s m ad e “b ec au se of” a p er so n ’s d isa b ili t y, a nd G ross co ns true s “b ec au se o f ” to r equi r e a sh o wi ng of but-for causa tion. T hu s, in the absen ce of a cross-reference to Tit l e VI I ’ s m i xed-m oti ve l iab ilityl anguage o r c om p ar ab le s ta n d -alo n e la n gu ag e in th e A D A its elf, a plainti ffco m pla i ni ng o fdi scr i m i nator y di schar ge und er th e A D A m u st sh ow th ath is o r h e r em p loy er w ou ld n oth av e fire d h im bu t f o r h i s a c tu al or p er c eiv ed d isa b ili ty; pro ofo fm i xed m oti ves w i l l notsuffi ce. Ourde ci si o n in M cN utt, sup ra , 141 F. 3d 706, dri ve s t h is point hom e. The pl aint i ffi n M cN uttsued hi s e m plo yer un d er T itl e VII, all eging th at his j ob assign m en ts w ere the pr oduct ofbo th r ace disc ri m i nati on a nd r eta l i ati on for th e as se r ti o n o fhi s st atut o r y r i g ht s. Al th o ug h a j ury rej ecte d h i s cl ai m o fr ace disc ri m i nati on, i t di d agr ee th atr et al i at i o n was a f ac tor in the j o b as si g nm en ts he w as giv en . H ow ev er , th e jur y a lso fou n d th at h e w ou ld have been gi ven the s am e a ssi gnm ents eve n i fr eta l i ati on had not fi gure d i nto hi s e m plo yer ’ s deci sio nm aking. Based on the j ury’ s m i xed-m oti ve fi nd i ng as to ret aliati on, the dist ri ct courtgr anted the pl ai nti ffi nj uncti ve re l i efbar ring anyaddit i onalr eta l i ati on an d awarded th e p l a i nt i ffh i s a t t o r ne y ’ s fe e s a nd c o s t s . We v acat ed the j ud gm ent ord er , concl ud i ng tha t thi s r el i efwas not author i zed by Ti tl e VI I
. A bsent f ro m the l anguage adde d t o Ti tl e VI Ib y the Ci vi l Ri g ht s Act o f 19 91 was a ny12 N o. 08

- 4010

re c og n itio n th at an ad v e r s e e m p loy m en t d ec isio n m ot iva te d in p ar t b y re ta liat ion bu t a lso by on e o r m or e le git imat e f a c t o r s c o nsti tute d a v i o l a t i o n o fT i t l e V I I ; mi xe dm o ti ve de ci si o ns b as ed i n pa r t o n r ac e, co l o r, r el i g i o n, s ex , an d n ational o rigin w ere m en tioned i n sec tion 2000 e-2(m ), bu t m ixed -m otive de cisions base d on retaliati o n w ere n ot
. Id. a t7 0 7

- 0 8
. “ T h e o mi s s i o n o fr e t a l i a t i o n c l a i ms f ro m thi s new provi si on a ffects the r el i efthatco urts can gr ant. ” Id. at70 8. W here as sect i on 2 000e- 5( g) ( 2) ( B) a uthori zed a cour t t o gr ant d ec lar ato ryand i nj uncti ve re l i ef an d an aw ar d of a p lain tiff’s at to rn ey ’s fe es an d co st s in th e types ofm i xed-m oti ve case s l i ste d i n sec ti on 2 000e

2( m ) , the om issi o n o fr et al i at i o n fr o m tha t l i stmean t th ats uchr el i efwas unava il abl e to a pl aint i ffwho had show n that re tal i ati on w as a m oti vating but not a butf orcause o fthe advers e em plo ym ent a cti on t ake n aga i nst h im
. Id. a t 70 8- 09
. W e no ted i n M cN utt that tw o othe r c ou rt s o f ap p ea ls h ad rea c h ed th is c on c lu sio n, i d. at70 9, a nd wh e n we s ubs eque nt l y r e a ffi r med M cN utt ’ s ho l di ng i n S p e e dyv . R ex n o r d Corp. , 2 43 F.3d 39 7, 406-07 (7th Cir. 20 0 1 ) , we n o t e d th a t a d d i t i o n a l c i r c u i t s h a d r e a c h ed th e sa m e co nc l us i o n. M cN uttc o nfi r m s th e i m po r t o fe xpl i ci t st atut o r y l an g ua g e r en der i nga n e m pl o y erliabl e f o r e m pl o y m en t deci si ons th at w ere m oti vate d i n partbya f orbi dd en consi derat i on but w hi ch the em plo yerst i l l would have m ade i n th e a b s e n c e o f th a t p r o s c r ib e d mo t i v e . I n t he abs en c e ofsuch l anguage , the l i m i ted r em edi es that Tit l e VI Io ther w i se m ake s a vai l abl e t o pla i nti ff s in such case s (and w h ic h are cross-referenced by the A D A ) are f or ecl ose d. Only b y pr oving tha t a f orbi dd en cr i ter i onN o. 08

- 4010 13

There i s a separate prov is ion of the A D A granti ng the dis tr ic t 3 c our tthe di s c re t i on t o a w ard a ttor ne y’ s fee s an d co s t s t o a pr e va i l i ng pa r t y othe r tha n the Un i t e d S t a t e s . 42 U.S
. C. § 12 20 5(a). B u t th e cou rt d id no t rely on this p ro v ision in a w a rd i n g S er w a tk a a p o rt io n o f he r fe es an d co sts , see583 F
. Su p p . 2d at 99 7, and Serw atk a h erself has n ev er claim ed to (co n tin u ed ...) w as a b u t
- f o r c au se of th e d ec isio n ca n th e p lain tiff a va il h er se lf of relie f. In th at res p ec t, M cN utti s co ns i st ent wi ththe S upr eme Co ur t’ s su bs eque ntde ci si o n in G ross . Se rwatka d id not s how thatherper cei ved di sabi l i ty w as a bu t-forcau se of her disch arge. A lthou gh th e j ury ag re ed with he r that Rockwel l ’ s per cepti on o fherl i m i tati o ns c o nt r ibut ed to the di sc ha rge, i t al so f o und th atRo ck wel l woul d ha ve term in at ed S er wat k a no twi th

s t a nd i ngthe i mpr o pe r c o ns i de r at i o n o fh e r ( pe r c e i v e d) disabi l i ty. Rel i efi s there f or e no t a vai l abl e t o h er under the AD A , and Rockwel l was enti tl ed to j ud gm en t in i ts fav or . C f. M cN utt, 14 1 F
. 3d at 709. The d ist rict co urt cer tai nl y c annot be f aul ted f ornot anti ci pat i ngthe S upr eme Co ur t’ s dec i si o n in G ross ; o ur o wnp r i o r d e c i s i o n s h a d h e l d th a t mi x e d

- mo t i v e c l a i ms w er e v iab le u n d er A D A
. See, e . g. , Fo ster, 16 8 F. 3d at 1033

- 34 . B u t in vie w of th e C ou rt ’s in te rv en i n g d ec isio n in G ross , i t is clear that the d istri ct cou rt’s dec isi on to aw ard S er wat k a dec l ar at o r y a nd i nj unc ti ve r el i efa lo ngwi tha port i on of he r att or ney’ s fees and cos ts cannot be s ustai ned. The r eliefawarded to Se rwatka w as prem i sed s o l e l y o n th e j u r y ’ s mi x e d

- mo t i v e f i ndi ng, a n d a s we 314 N o. 08

- 4010

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 3 qua l i fy a s a pre vai l i ng pa rty who i s e ntitled to he r f ee s an d co sts u n d er th is p ro v isi o n . S eeSer w atka Br. 17.

1- 15- 10 ha v e e xp l a i ne d, g i v e n the l a c ko fa provi si o n i n the ADA re c ogniz i ng m i xed-m oti ve cl ai m s, such cl ai m s do not en ti tl e a pl aint i fft o r el i eff o r di sabi l i tydi sc r i m i na ti o n. The j ud gm ent i s there f or e V ACATED , an d th e c as e is R EMAND ED to the dist ri ct cour t w i th dir ecti ons to enter j ud gm ent in f avo r ofRock w el l
. The part i es shal l bea r th eir ow n co st s o f ap p ea l.