## Facts

- Desert Palace, Inc. operated Caesars Palace Hotel & Casino in Las Vegas, including a warehouse workforce.
- Catharina Costa worked as the only female warehouse worker and heavy-equipment operator.
- Costa’s relationship with supervisors and coworkers deteriorated, resulting in escalating discipline and her termination.
- At trial, Costa presented evidence that she received harsher discipline than male employees for similar conduct, including an altercation where she was terminated while a male coworker received a lesser penalty.
- Costa also introduced evidence of sex-based slurs, unfavorable overtime assignments, and closer monitoring and discipline than male comparators.
- A jury found for Costa on her Title VII sex-discrimination claim and awarded backpay, compensatory damages, and punitive damages.

## Issues

1. Whether a Title VII plaintiff must present direct evidence of discrimination to obtain a mixed-motive jury instruction under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(m).
2. Whether circumstantial evidence alone can permit a reasonable jury to find that sex was a motivating factor in an adverse employment action.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the judgment for Costa in an opinion by Justice Thomas.
- The Court held that Title VII, as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, does not require direct evidence to obtain a mixed-motive instruction under § 2000e-2(m).
- The Court concluded a plaintiff need only present sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that sex was a motivating factor in the challenged employment practice.
- The Court upheld the district court’s mixed-motive instruction and the Ninth Circuit’s approval of that instruction.

## Legal Principles

- Under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(m), an unlawful employment practice is established when the plaintiff proves, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a protected trait was a motivating factor, even if other factors also motivated the decision.
- “Demonstrates,” as used in the 1991 amendments, refers to meeting ordinary burdens of production and persuasion, not a heightened “direct evidence” threshold.
- Circumstantial evidence is fully competent in civil cases to satisfy the plaintiff’s burden on motivating-factor causation.
- If the plaintiff establishes motivating-factor liability, the employer may limit remedies by proving it would have taken the same action absent the impermissible factor, under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g)(2)(B).

## Conclusion

Desert Palace held that a Title VII plaintiff seeking a mixed-motive instruction under the 1991 amendments need not produce direct evidence; circumstantial evidence can suffice to show that sex was a motivating factor, with the employer’s same-decision proof limiting remedies rather than defeating liability.


Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa, 539 U.S. 90 (2003)