This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
The case concerns whether the burden of proof in a Title VII discrimination claim shifts to the defendant.
Before the 1991 amendments, direct evidence was required for mixed‑motive discrimination cases.
Background and question before the Court
Title VII establishes liability when a protected characteristic was a motivating factor, even if other factors also motivated the practice.
According to Irving L. Gornstein, the 1991 amendments created a special rule for mixed‑motive cases where proof of but‑for cause is not required.
According to Chief Justice, the Court asked: “What is your definition of direct evidence?”
Justice Souter asked whether the Court’s approach reflects appellate courts’ determinations or a necessity due to a split in opinions.
What each side argues
Petitioner
According to Mark J. Ricciardi, the petitioner argues that this case involves an extraordinary situation where the burden of proof is shifted to the defendant, a principle recognized in limited contexts and in Title VII since 1989.
What happened at oral argument
Oral argument before the Supreme Court began at 11:04 a.m.
Mark J. Ricciardi, Esq., of Las Vegas, Nevada, appeared on behalf of the petitioner.
According to Chief Justice Rehnquist, chief Justice Rehnquist thanked counsel and noted that the case was submitted.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
If a plaintiff demonstrates that sex was a motivating factor, the plaintiff wins, and the affirmative defense only limits the remedy, not the victory.
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 55b584f2c53b7b7df4ca-r1-9717679c0c4b7d13.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 20, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.