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
Petitioner argues that the appellate court erred by requiring direct evidence to obtain the specific jury instruction at issue.
Background and question before the Court
According to Petitioner, the central question is whether a plaintiff must present direct evidence to obtain the specific instruction.
What each side argues
Petitioner
Petitioner argues that the appellate court erred by requiring direct evidence to obtain the specific jury instruction at issue.
According to Mr. Phillips, the only question is: Who bears the burden of proof?
According to Mr. Phillips, there is a question about the adequacy of the jury instruction.
Respondent
According to MS. BLATT, respondent suggests that after summary judgment, a motivated‑factor instruction could allow the jury to find both permissible and impermissible motives.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Scalia asked whether the statement might be wrong depending on how Price Waterhouse is read.
According to Justice Kennedy, justice Kennedy questioned whether the Court has ever imposed a burden‑of‑proof‑shifting requirement absent a congressional directive.
Justice Ginsburg asked whether there is a variety of circuit views on what Justice O'Connor meant by “direct evidence.”
According to Justice Alito, justice Alito wondered whether a direct‑evidence requirement would create problems for jury trials compared with bench trials.
Justice Souter asked whether the only source for the proposition that direct evidence is required is Justice O'Connor’s separate opinion.
Justice Alito asked whether there is a tenable distinction between mixed‑motives and non‑mixed‑motives cases.
According to JUSTICE ALITO, justice Alito inquired about empirical evidence on the effect of the 1991 amendments.
According to Justice Alito, justice Alito questioned whether cases involving two independent physical causes differ from cases breaking down human motivation into separate factors.
- [1] 089f195ec2f33d5c58e6-r1-496d7a1cc4ac56d6.pdf, p. 3
- [2] 089f195ec2f33d5c58e6-r1-496d7a1cc4ac56d6.pdf, p. 4
- [3] 089f195ec2f33d5c58e6-r1-496d7a1cc4ac56d6.pdf, p. 6
- [4] 089f195ec2f33d5c58e6-r1-496d7a1cc4ac56d6.pdf, p. 7
- [5] 089f195ec2f33d5c58e6-r1-496d7a1cc4ac56d6.pdf, p. 11
- [6] 089f195ec2f33d5c58e6-r1-496d7a1cc4ac56d6.pdf, p. 19
- [7] 089f195ec2f33d5c58e6-r1-496d7a1cc4ac56d6.pdf, p. 25
- [8] 089f195ec2f33d5c58e6-r1-496d7a1cc4ac56d6.pdf, p. 57
What the Court decided
Why it matters
According to Mr. Phillips, the key issue is who bears the burden of proof.
According to Mr. Phillips, there is a question about the adequacy of the jury instruction.
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.
- 089f195ec2f33d5c58e6-r1-496d7a1cc4ac56d6.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 23, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.