Confounding the Courts: The Circuit Courts' Failure to Articulate an Appropriate Summary Judgment Standard in Mixed-Motive Individual Disparate Treatment Claims

Derek Runyan

Abstract


The Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Quigg v. Thomas County School District solidified the division among federal circuits over the appropriate summary judgment standard in individual disparate treatment mixed-motive cases based on circumstantial evidence. At the moment, the circuits have adopted, in varying degrees, four distinct approaches. In Part IV, this Note argues that the circuit courts have failed to articulate a summary judgment standard that satisfies Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, reflects the statutory language of 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000(e)-2(m) (2012), and recognizes that the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework “is fatally inconsistent with the mixed-motive theory of discrimination.” For mixed-motive cases, this Note proposes in Part V that an appropriate summary judgment framework can be articulated by merging and modifying the Fourth and Fifth Circuits’ standards with the framework adopted by the Sixth and the Eleventh Circuits. Ultimately, this Note proposes the adoption of the following standard: in a mixed-motive case, a plaintiff may survive a motion for summary judgment by presenting direct or circumstantial evidence that raises a genuine issue of material fact as to whether: (1) the defendant took an adverse employment action against the plaintiff; and (2) race, color, religion, sex, or national origin was a motivating factor for the defendant’s adverse employment action.


Full Text:

PDF


DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/lawreview.2017.471

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




Copyright (c) 2017 Derek Runyan

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.

This journal is published by the University Library System of the University of Pittsburgh as part of its D-Scribe Digital Publishing Program and is cosponsored by the University of Pittsburgh Press.


ISSN 0041-9915 (print) 1942-8405 (online)