Dare to Step Out of the Fogg: Single Motive Versus Mixed Motive Analysis in Title VII Employment Discrimination Cases
47 U. Louisville L. Rev. 409 (Winter 2008)
The enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 marked the high point of civil rights activism. Within this Act, the provisions of Title VII established one of the “most important . . . statutory prohibitions against employment discrimination” because it took the protections offered by the Constitution even further to eradicate employment discrimination in the private sector.1 Title VII remains very important to employees because it protects those employees who for centuries have occupied the lower echelon of society. There are two forms of discrimination claims that fall under Title VII: disparate impact and disparate treatment. The cornerstone of a disparate-treatment case is that the employee must show that discrimination was intentional, unlike in disparate impact cases where there is only a discriminatory effect. This Note addresses a current controversy involving disparate-treatment cases, arguing that the standard currently applied in those cases, although applicable in pretrial situations, is not viable for jury trials.