In a much-anticipated decision, the California Supreme Court in Harris v. City of Santa Monica responded to the long-standing question of whether and to what extent the mixed-motive defense is recognized in employment discrimination cases in this state. The decision is not a clear-cut win for either employers or employees, but provides much-needed guidance in an area that has engendered confusion for many years.
The court’s unanimous Feb. 7 opinion, delivered by Justice Goodwin Liu, held that, under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, where an adverse employment decision was motivated by both discriminatory and nondiscriminatory reasons, but the employer proves that it would have made the same decision regardless of the discrimination, "a court may not award damages, backpay, or an order of reinstatement. But the employer does not escape liability."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
