Opinion ID: 201854
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Evidentiary Standard

Text: 30 We pause to clarify the law on the categories of evidence that can be used to establish a mixed-motive claim. Burton agreed, when prompted by the district court, that she was simply rely[ing] on the inference from the remark itself as direct evidence of discrimination. The district court, in granting defendants' Rule 50(a) motion on the discrimination claims, noted that it was accepting the plaintiff's theory that [her claim] rests on the direct evidence of the remark itself. This court, however, following the Supreme Court's command in Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa, 539 U.S. 90, 123 S.Ct. 2148, 156 L.Ed.2d 84 (2003), has rejected the requirement that there be direct evidence in mixed-motive cases; any evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, may be amassed to show, by preponderance, discriminatory motive. See id. at 101-02, 123 S.Ct. 2148; Hillstrom v. Best W. TLC Hotel, 354 F.3d 27, 30-31 (1st Cir.2003); see also Beacon Mut. Ins. Co. v. OneBeacon Ins. Group, 376 F.3d 8, 17 (1st Cir.2004).