Desert Palace v. Costa

After being fired for disciplinary problems, Costa sued her employer, Caesars Palace Hotel and Casino (Caesars), for violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. At trial, Costa argued, and the jury agreed, that sex was "a motivating factor" in her termination. Because Caesars failed to establish that she would have been terminated without consideration of her sex, the jury awarded back pay and compensatory damages. The en banc court of appeals affirmed, holding that Title VII imposes no special or heightened evidentiary burden on a plaintiff in a so-called "mixed-motive" case.

Questions Presented:
1. Did the 9th Circuit err in holding that direct evidence is not required in Title VII cases to trigger the application of the "mixed-motive" analysis set out in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins?

2. What are the appropriate standards for lower courts to follow in making a direct evidence determination in "mixed-motive" cases under Title VII?

Decision under Review

Supreme Court Opinion