We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
Yesterday, the California Supreme Court finally ruled on a case
that had been pending before it for three years, thus providing
some guidance in cases where both legitimate and unlawful factors
affect an employment decision.
In Harris v. City of Santa Monica, the California
Supreme Court issued a decision affecting employment discrimination
cases where unlawful discrimination is alleged to have been one
factor in an employee's termination. Unsurprisingly, the
Court's ruling on "mixed motive" cases is a mixed bag
for employers.
The Supreme Court in Harris considered a jury
instruction that said if the jury found a mix of discriminatory and
legitimate motives, the City could avoid liability by proving that
a legitimate motive alone would have led it to make the same
decision. In Harris, the trial court had refused to
provide that instruction and instead instructed the jury that they
could find liability if the discriminatory motive was merely a
substantial motivating factor in the decision to terminate. The
Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the requested instruction
was legally correct and the trial court's refusal to provide
that instruction was improper.
The Supreme Court concluded that the Court of Appeals was only
partially correct. First, the Court found that where an employer
proves it would have made the questioned decision absent
discrimination, a court may not award damages, backpay, or an order
of reinstatement. In so ruling, the Court found that
"[c]urtailing employers' prerogatives in this way —
that is, forcing an employer to retain someone when it had
sufficient and legitimate reasons not to do so — would cause
inefficiency and . . . tend to 'deprive[] the state of the
fullest utilization of its capacities for development and
advancement,' contrary to the FEHA's purposes. (§
12920.)" The Court further found that economic damages,
including backpay, would be an "unjustified windfall" for
such a plaintiff. This part of the opinion is most helpful to
California employers.
The Court also found, however, that because California's
Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) seeks to prevent and deter
unlawful discrimination in the workplace, not just redress such
claims, a plaintiff in a mixed motive case could still be awarded
declaratory relief or injunctive relief to stop discriminatory
practices, in addition to reasonable attorney's fees and costs.
In making this decision, the Supreme Court stated that in not fully
absolving an employer of liability where unlawful discrimination
was a "substantial factor," by allowing recovery of some
attorney's fees and costs along with injunctive and declaratory
relief, it allows the "compensat[ion of] a plaintiff and her
counsel for bringing a meritorious claim of unlawful
discrimination," (attorneys' fees) the reaffirming of
"plaintiff's equal standing among her coworkers and
community..." the "condemn[ing of] discriminatory
employment policies or practices," (declaratory relief) and
the stopping of discriminatory practices (injunctive relief).
While the Harris decision provides some good news in
that it does not permit an employee that was legitimately
terminated to recover economic damages or to be reinstated, it
still leaves employers on the hook for attorneys' fees and
costs where a plaintiff's attorney can show that unlawful
discrimination was a substantially motivating factor in the
termination. Employers should remain mindful of this when making
employment decisions in California.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
A female employee traveling for her employer met a "friend" and at her motel room with him became "injured whilst engaging in sexual intercourse when a glass light fitting above the bed was pulled from its mount and fell on her."
The Departments of Labor, Treasury, and Health & Human Services have issued new guidance on the content requirements for health plan summaries of benefits and coverage ("SBCs").
Groping, insulting, and threatening female employees has just resulted in an award by a federal jury in Tampa of $20.2 million in damages in an action which alleged a hostile work environment.
