We found a match
Your institution may have access to this item. Find your institution then sign in to continue.
- Title
The Failure of Mixed-Motives Jurisprudence.
- Authors
Verstein, Andrew
- Abstract
Because legal determinations often turn on motive, and motives are often complex, courts must decide what to do about mixed motives. For example, a boss might fire someone both for lawful reasons relating to job performance and also because of illegal prejudice. Increasingly, courts evaluate such cases under a "But-For standard," which finds for the plaintiff only if the defendant would have acted differently but for the bad motive. Put another way, the defendant loses unless the bad motive made some kind of causal difference in outcomes. While this approach is intuitive, I argue that the But-For standard is problematic. The widespread acceptance of the But-For standard is the most important failure in our jurisprudence of mixed motives.
- Subjects
MOTIVE (Law); PROXIMATE cause (Law); EQUAL rights; UNITED States. Supreme Court; BATSON v. Kentucky
- Publication
University of Chicago Law Review, 2019, Vol 86, Issue 3, p725
- ISSN
0041-9494
- Publication type
Article