{"argument_date":"2003-04-21T00:00:00Z","arguments":[{"argument_date":"2003-04-21T00:00:00Z","heading":"What happened at the argument","official_detail_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcript/2002","official_transcript_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/02-679.pdf","paragraphs":["Mr. Ricciardi argued that the 1991 amendments created a special rule for mixed-motive cases. This rule does not require proof of but-for cause.","Mr. Peccole stated that the parties agreed to jury instructions one through nine. Instruction nine contained the 107(a) standard.","Chief Justice Rehnquist asked Mr. Ricciardi to confirm the pronunciation of his name. The Chief Justice then stated the case was submitted."],"reargument":false,"sequence":1,"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 23-45","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/02-679.pdf","page_label":"file page 17, lines 23-45"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 21-15","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/02-679.pdf","page_label":"file page 26, lines 21-15"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-21","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/02-679.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 19-21"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-17","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/02-679.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 5-17"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 42, lines 5-9","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/02-679.pdf","page_label":"file page 42, lines 5-9"}]}],"caption":"Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa","case_history":[{"changed_at":"2026-08-29T20:06:31.048513Z","explanation":"An official oral-argument transcript was verified.","status":"argued"}],"case_status":"argued","dek":"The dispute centers on whether an employer must prove that a protected characteristic was the sole cause of an adverse action to avoid liability.","dek_sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 23-45","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/02-679.pdf","page_label":"file page 17, lines 23-45"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 21-15","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/02-679.pdf","page_label":"file page 26, lines 21-15"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-21","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/02-679.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 19-21"}],"dispositions":[],"latest_court_document_date":"2003-04-21T00:00:00Z","maturity":"official_transcript","official_detail_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcript/2002","official_disposition_urls":[],"official_docket_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/02-679.html","primary_docket":"02-679","revisions":[{"correction_note":"Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.","created_at":"2026-08-31T16:18:00.706336Z","maturity":"official_transcript","revision_number":1},{"correction_note":"Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.","created_at":"2026-09-05T03:22:24Z","maturity":"official_transcript","revision_number":2}],"schema_version":"1.1","sections":[{"heading":"What this case is about","paragraphs":["This case examines the standard for proving disparate treatment under Title VII. The core issue is whether the 1991 amendments created a special liability rule for mixed-motive cases. This rule would allow liability without proof that the protected characteristic was the sole cause."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 23-45","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/02-679.pdf","page_label":"file page 17, lines 23-45"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 21-15","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/02-679.pdf","page_label":"file page 26, lines 21-15"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-21","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/02-679.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 19-21"}]},{"heading":"How the case got here","paragraphs":["The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on April 21, 2003."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-17","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/02-679.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 5-17"}]},{"heading":"What each side wants","paragraphs":["the side that brought the case wants the Court to apply the mixed-motive liability rule. This rule does not require proof that gender was the sole cause of the adverse decision.","the opposing side wants the Court to require proof that gender was the sole cause of the adverse decision. This aligns with the traditional disparate treatment prohibition."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 23-45","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/02-679.pdf","page_label":"file page 17, lines 23-45"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 21-15","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/02-679.pdf","page_label":"file page 26, lines 21-15"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-21","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/02-679.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 19-21"}]},{"heading":"What each side says","paragraphs":["the side that brought the case argues that the 1991 amendments created a special rule for mixed-motive cases. This rule relaxes the requirement for proving but-for causation.","the opposing side argues that Title VII has required a finding that a protected characteristic was a but-for cause since 1964. This standard remains the baseline for disparate treatment claims."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 23-45","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/02-679.pdf","page_label":"file page 17, lines 23-45"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 21-15","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/02-679.pdf","page_label":"file page 26, lines 21-15"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-21","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/02-679.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 19-21"}]},{"heading":"What the justices asked","paragraphs":["Chief Justice Rehnquist asked Mr. Ricciardi to confirm the correct pronunciation of his name.","Chief Justice Rehnquist asked Mr. Ricciardi to confirm the correct pronunciation of his name."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-17","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/02-679.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 5-17"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 42, lines 5-9","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/02-679.pdf","page_label":"file page 42, lines 5-9"}]},{"heading":"Why it matters","paragraphs":["Employers face different liability standards depending on the causation proof required. Employees gain broader protection if mixed-motive liability applies. The outcome defines the evidentiary burden in discrimination cases."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 23-45","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/02-679.pdf","page_label":"file page 17, lines 23-45"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 21-15","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/02-679.pdf","page_label":"file page 26, lines 21-15"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-21","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/02-679.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 19-21"}]},{"heading":"What happens next","paragraphs":["This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-17","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/02-679.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 5-17"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 42, lines 5-9","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/02-679.pdf","page_label":"file page 42, lines 5-9"}]}],"slug":"2002-02-679-desert-palace-inc-v-costa","term":"2002","title":"Does Title VII require proof that gender was the sole cause of an adverse employment decision?","title_sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 23-45","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/02-679.pdf","page_label":"file page 17, lines 23-45"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 21-15","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/02-679.pdf","page_label":"file page 26, lines 21-15"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-21","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2002/02-679.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 19-21"}],"topics":[],"undated_disposition_date_fallback":null,"updated_at":"2026-09-05T03:22:24Z"}