Employment statutes generally prohibit actions like hiring or firing that are “based on” or “because of” impermissible reasons. Determining motive is not always straightforward, as people often have multiple motives informing their actions. The analysis is easy when the evidence shows that the impermissible reason was the only reason for the decision: for example, if an employer refuses to hire the most qualified candidate just because of his race.

In many cases, however, the evidence demonstrates that the employer had both lawful and unlawful reasons for taking a particular adverse employment action. So how does the law treat these types of “mixed motive” cases? Does the lawful reason cancel out the unlawful reason, or vice-versa? This article examines the differing standards under California law versus federal law for mixed-motive cases of discrimination and retaliation through the lens of a recent federal court decision, Goodson v. County of Plumas, and consider what that means for employers and employees in the state.

Background Law—FEHA and Title VII

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]