Document: 539 U.S. 90 DESERT PALACE, INC., DBA CAESARS PALACE HOTEL & CASINOv.COSTA. No. 02-679. Supreme Court of United States. Argued April 21, 2003. Decided June 9, Title VII the Civil Rights Act 1964 makes it an "unlawful employment practice for employer . to discriminate against any individual ., because sex." 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). In Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 228, this considered whether decision is made "because of" sex in a "mixed-motive" case, i. e., where both legitimate and illegitimate reasons motivated decision. Although concluded that had affirmative defense if could prove would have same gender not played role, was divided on question when burden proof shifts defense. JUSTICE O'CONNOR, concurring judgment, shift only disparate treatment plaintiff show by "direct evidence criterion substantial factor [employment] decision." Id., at 276. Congress subsequently passed 1991 (1991 Act), which provides, among other things, (1) unlawful established "when complaining party demonstrates that... sex. .. motivating practice, even though factors also practice," 2000e-2(m), (2) proves violation under can avail itself limited restricts available remedies taken action absent impermissible factor, 2000e-5(g)(2)(B). Respondent, who petitioner's female warehouse worker heavy equipment operator, problems with management her co-workers, led escalating disciplinary sanctions ultimate termination. She filed lawsuit, asserting, inter alia, discrimination claim. Based she presented trial, District denied motion judgment as matter law submitted case jury. The instructed jury, relevant here, respondent proved preponderance adverse work conditions imposed her, but conduct lawful reasons, entitled damages unless petitioner treated similarly no role. Petitioner unsuccessfully objected instruction, claiming adduced evidence" jury awarded backpay compensatory punitive damages, renewed law. A Ninth Circuit panel vacated remanded, agreeing erred giving mixed-motive instruction. en banc court, however, reinstated finding does impose special evidentiary requirement. Held: Direct required obtain instruction VII. starting point Court's analysis statutory text. See Connecticut Nat. Bank Germain, 503 249, 253-254. Where, statute's words are unambiguous, judicial inquiry complete. 254. Section 2000e-2(m) unambiguously states need demonstrate used forbidden consideration respect practice. On its face, mention must make heightened showing through direct evidence. Moreover, explicitly defined "demonstrates" "mee[t] burdens production persuasion." 2000e-2(m). Had intended require evidence, included language effect has unequivocally done imposing requirements circumstances. See, e. g., 5851(b)(3)(D). VII's silence suggests should depart from conventional rule civil litigation generally applied cases, requires his using or circumstantial This often acknowledged utility cases never questioned adequacy criminal beyond reasonable doubt required. Finally, use term provisions tends incorporate 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(i). Pp. 98-102. 299 F. 3d 838, affirmed. THOMAS, J., delivered opinion unanimous Court. opinion, post, p. 102. 1 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR NINTH CIRCUIT. 2 Mark J. Ricciardi argued cause petitioner. With him briefs were Roger K. Quillen, Paul A. Ades, Corbett N. Gordon. 3 Irving L. Gornstein States amicus curiae. brief Solicitor General Olson, Assistant Attorneys McCallum Boyd, Deputy Clement, Dennis Dimsey, Teresa Kwong. 4 Robert Peccole respondent. Eric Schnapper.* 5 THOMAS 6 before us present order 1964, amended Act). We hold 7 * 8 Since such individual's race, color, religion, sex, national origin." 78 Stat. 255, 2000e-2(a)(1) (emphasis added). 228 (1989), that, 2000e-2(a)(1), "avoid liability proving allowed play role." 244; see id., 261, n. (White, judgment); 261 (O'CONNOR, judgment). divided, over predicate may be shifted 9 Justice Brennan, writing plurality four Justices, held plaintiff.. part decision, defendant avoid plaintiff's into account." 258 did not, "suggest limitation possible ways [gender] stereotyping role 251-252. 10 White O'CONNOR concurred judgment. governed Mt. Healthy City Bd. Ed. Doyle, 429 274 (1977), "show[ed] motive action." Waterhouse, supra, 259. like White, "substantial factor" S., But, O'CONNOR'S view, "the issue causation" "a [could] Ibid. 11 Two years after "in large [as] response series decisions interpreting Acts 1866 1964." Landgraf USI Film Products, 511 244, 250 (1994). particular, 107 Act, "respond[ed]" "setting forth standards applicable `mixed motive' cases" two new provisions.1 251. first establishes alternative practice" occurred: 12 "Except otherwise provided subchapter, origin practice." 13 second provides claim section 2000e-2(m)," absolve liability, plaintiff. include declaratory relief, certain types injunctive attorney's fees costs. 2000e-5(g)(2)(B).2 defense, "demonstrat[e] [it] absence factor." 14 passage Courts Appeals "motivating action. Relying primarily concurrence number courts establish Mohr Dustrol, Inc., 306 636, 640-641 (CA8 2002); Fernandes Costa Bros. Masonry, 199 572, 580 (CA1 1999); Trotter Board Trustees Univ. Ala., 91 1449, 1453-1454 (CA11 1996); Fuller Phipps, 67 1137, 1142 (CA4 1995). below, otherwise. infra, 97-98. B 15 Desert Palace, dba Caesar's Palace Hotel Casino Las Vegas, Nevada, employed Catharina operator. Respondent woman job local Teamsters bargaining unit. 16 experienced co-workers sanctions, including informal rebukes, denial privileges, suspension. finally terminated involved physical altercation elevator fellow member Herbert Gerber. disciplined employees facts surrounding incident dispute, Gerber, clean record, received 5-day 17 lawsuit asserting claims sexual harassment dismissed claim, go At singled out "intense `stalking'" one supervisors, harsher discipline than men conduct, (3) less favorably assignment overtime, (4) supervisors repeatedly "stack[ed]" record "frequently tolerated" sex-based slurs her. 845-846 (CA9 2002). 18 law, instructions, here. First, without objection petitioner, "`[t]he evidence'" "`suffered conditions'" "`was upon her.'" 858. 19 Second, gave following instruction: 20 "`You heard defendant's reasons. If you find plaintiff, your verdict, reason. 21 "`However, decide damages. decision.'" 22 failed adduce dismissal actions rendered verdict respondent, awarding backpay, 23 initially holding statements directly reflecting discriminatory animus." 268 882, 884 2001). addition, termination insufficient "terminated woman." 890. 24 rehearing banc. 838 court saw controlled references been "wholly abrogated" Act. 3d, 850. And, turning "to language" observed statute "imposes [evidentiary] requirement reference `direct evidence.'" 853. Accordingly, "plaintiff (whether circumstantial) protected characteristic `a factor.'" 853-854 (footnote omitted). standard, respondent's sufficient warrant found treatment." 859. Four judges dissented, relying reasoning prior three-judge panel." 866. 25 granted certiorari. 537 1099 (2003). II 26 opportunity consider effects instructions cases. Specifically, we Petitioner's argument proceeds three steps: Waterhouse; given; nothing abrogate holding. Like Appeals, address opinions controlling: third step flawed, inconsistent text 27 Our precedents clear our 253-254 (1992). And where, "`judicial complete.'" 254 (quoting Rubin States, 449 424, 430 (1981)). "demonstrat[e]" "any mention, much require, Indeed, concedes much. Tr. Oral Arg. 9. 28 leaving little defines "`demonstrates'" 2000e(m). "burdens persuasion" met some showing, intent Its failure do so significant, unequivocal circumstances, 42. 1158(a)(2)(B) (stating asylum application alien "demonstrates convincing within year alien's arrival States); 5851(b)(3)(D) (providing "[r]elief ordered" retaliation involving whistleblowers Atomic Energy able unfavorable personnel behavior" added)); cf. 253 (plurality opinion) ("Only rarely defended seeks relief"). 29 type "[c]onventional rul[e] [that] appl[ies] cases." That "by evidence," ibid., Postal Service Governors Aikens, 460 711, 714, (1983). For instance, Reeves Sanderson Plumbing 530 133 (2000), recognized explanation "unworthy credence" "one form probative intentional discrimination." 147 reason treating alike deep rooted: "Circumstantial sufficient, more certain, satisfying persuasive evidence." Rogers Missouri Pacific R. Co., 352 500, 508, (1957). 30 extends cases; sufficiency support conviction, Holland 348 121, 140 (1954) (observing "intrinsically different testimonial evidence"). juries routinely "[t]he distinction between weight value given either 1A O'Malley, Grenig, W. Lee, Federal Jury Practice Instructions, Criminal 12.04 (5th ed. 2000); Sand, Siffert, Loughlin, Reiss, Batterman, Modern Instructions ¶ 74.01 (2002) (model 74-2). It surprising, therefore, neither nor amici curiae circumstance restricted litigant presentation directive statute. 13. 31 further §§ 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(i), 2000e-5(g)(2)(B) take advantage partial Due similarity structure provision logical assume carry meaning provisions. But pressed oral about invoked, "agree standard" satisfy. 7. Absent congressional indication contrary, decline give depending rights issue. Commissioner Lundy, 516 235, (1996) ("The interrelationship close proximity these `presents classic "normal construction identical parts act meaning"'" Sullivan Stroop, 496 478, 484 (1990))). 32 stated above, agree 2000e-2(m).3 33 34 conclude, "race, Because correctly abuse discretion 35 ordered. Notes: Ann Elizabeth Reesman, Katherine Y. Cheung, Stephen Bokat, Ellen D. Bryant Equal Employment Advisory Council et al. urging reversal. Briefs affirmance American Federation Labor Industrial Organizations Jonathan P. Hiatt, James B. Coppess, Laurence Gold; Association Trial Lawyers America Jeffrey Needle; Lawyers' Committee Under Law Michael Subit, Barbara Arnwine, Thomas Henderson, Foreman, Kristin M. Dadey, Osborne, Laurie McCann, Daniel Kohrman, Melvin Radowitz, Lenora Lapidus, Vincent Eng, Judith Lichtman, Jocelyn Frye, Hayes; Hopkins Douglas Huron. Ronald Schwartz Jenifer Bosco National when, ever, applies outside context full: "On title court— "(i) grant relief (except clause (ii)), costs demonstrated attributable pursuit title; "(ii) shall award requiring admission, reinstatement, hiring, promotion, payment, described subparagraph (A)." Of course, light conclusion certiorari: "What appropriate lower follow making determination `mixed-motive' VII?" Pet. Cert. i 36 concurring. 37 I join opinion. my 1991, developed persuasion appropriately "demonstrated role" 275 (1989) triggered deterrent purpose statute" permitted factfinder conclude "absent explanation, employer's motivation `caused' 265. 38 As explains, codified arising Ante, 98-101. therefore

Category: 1