An Early Take On The Desert Palace Decision - From a Plaintiff's Perspective
by Michael Fox
Professor JoAnna Grossman has an explanation in her Findlaw column of the Supreme Court's recent decision, and a prediction on what it means:
The Court's decision in this case opens doors for more plaintiffs to get their cases to a jury. After Desert Palace, a plaintiff who has faced mixed-motive discrimination, and who can offer some proof of animus or hostility to his or her group status, may be able to win--or at least get before the jury. Prior to Desert Palace, in contrast, many courts would have required that proof to not only be convincing, but also "direct" in order for a plaintiff's claim to survive summary judgment.
The money quote, and this time that could be meant literally for employers if she is right, is in bold.