October Term 2002 · Docket 02-679
Does Title VII require proof that gender was the sole cause of an adverse employment decision?
The dispute centers on whether an employer must prove that a protected characteristic was the sole cause of an adverse action to avoid liability.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
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.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 23-45 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 23-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 21-15 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 21-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 42, lines 5-9 — Transcript, file page 42, lines 5-9
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
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.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 23-45 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 23-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 21-15 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 21-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-21
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on April 21, 2003.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-17
What each side wants
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.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 23-45 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 23-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 21-15 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 21-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-21
What each side says
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.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 23-45 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 23-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 21-15 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 21-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-21
What the justices asked
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.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 42, lines 5-9 — Transcript, file page 42, lines 5-9
Why it matters
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.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 23-45 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 23-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 21-15 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 21-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-21
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 42, lines 5-9 — Transcript, file page 42, lines 5-9
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 23-45 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 23-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 21-15 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 21-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 23-45 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 23-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 21-15 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 21-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-21
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.