This year, lawmakers and their plaintiff’s bar buddies asked Governor Jerry Brown to recast awards in so-called mixed-motive discrimination cases. Brown vetoed Senate Bill 655, leaving in place the State’s high court ruling in Harris v. City of Santa Monica in February 2013. In that 6-0 decision, Brown’s appointee Liu said a workplace firing based both on discrimination and legitimate reasons can trigger attorney fees and declaratory or injunctive relief for a plaintiff but not damages, back pay or reinstatement.Continue Reading Gov. Brown Vetoes Pro Plaintiff Mixed-Motive Bill
mixed motive
Tangled is The Heart: U.S. Supreme Court Rejects “Mixed Motives” As A Basis For Retaliation Claims
By Ramona Carrillo on
Posted in Labor Law, Retaliation and Wrongful Termination
By: Chuck Post
In University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, the Supreme Court held that employees must show that “but for” the employer’s desire to retaliate, the employee would not have suffered an adverse action (demotion, termination, etc.) against him/her. Lower courts had been split over whether the “but for” standard was…