News & Insights

Recent Posts

Covid-19: Assessing the Legal Risk of Infectious Diseases

Covid-19 Employer Alert: Summary of the CARES Act

Covid-19: New York Malpractice Law Alert

Covid-19 Employer Alert: Enactment of Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA)

WSHB Co-Founder Stephen Henning to Announce the Winner of CLM's 2020 Outside Counsel Professional of the Year Award

WSHB Partner Robert Hellner Shares Mediation Tactics at CLM’s 2020 Annual Conference

Risk Transfer and Contractual Indemnification – Who Gets Left Holding the Bag?

New Developments in Challenging Certificates of Merit — Seeking Dismissal for Failure to Concurrently File Certificate with the Original Petition

Seven Habits that Define a Highly Effective Claims Team

Social Media Do's and Don'ts

Read the Room: Arguments that Work in Court but May Backfire at Mediation

WSHB Partner Kelly Waters Named to NJBIZ's 2020 Best Fifty Women in Business List

WSHB Names Andrew S. Kessler as Managing Partner of the Firm's Philadelphia Office

WSHB Employment Alert: California Law Banning Arbitration Agreements Temporarily on Hold

Sam McDermott on the Dos and Don’ts of Construction Project Termination

Full Disclosure! Insurer Beware: Colorado’s New Automobile Policy Disclosure Law Has Teeth!

Andrew S. Kessler Named Legal Counsel for Northeast Community Center for Behavioral Health

WSHB Elevates Ten Partners to Defined Equity Status

Eleven WSHB Attorneys Elected Into Partnership

Eighteen Attorneys Elected to WSHB Senior Counsel

Supreme Court Allows Suit Over Website Accessibility

Strategies for Defending Legionella and Mold Claims

Residential Revolution

Time Limit Demand Issues Arrive in North Carolina

WSHB Welcomes New Partner Julie A. Weerth to the Firm's New York Office

Temp Agency Absolved of Liability in Hotly Contested Action

Alternative Fee Agreements and Construction Issues: Oil and Water or Perfect Pairing!?

WSHB's Graham Miller Helps Demystify Construction Claims in the Pacific Northwest

WSHB Partner Janice Michaels Named to The Best Lawyers in America© 2020 List

One Bad Apple: Navigating through Sexual Battery and other Intentional Torts

Leading Construction Litigator Cynthia Tari Joins WSHB's Dallas Office

WSHB’s Philadelphia Partner Secures Summary Judgment in Catastrophic Premises Liability Matter

WSHB Welcomes New Partner Andrew Kessler

New Bill In New York Proposed for Signature by Governor Andrew Cuomo is Set To Make Employers "SWEAT"

Renowned Litigator Jason Williams Joins WSHB's Nevada Office

Litigator Richard Young Joins WSHB's Nevada Office

Published Appellate Opinion Upholding Summary Judgment in Favor of Commercial Tenant Against $3.5M Subrogation Suit

17 WSHB Lawyers Honored as 2019's Rising Stars

Arizona Supreme Court Allows Court of Appeals Decision Expanding Defendants' Ability to Enforce Settlements to Stand

WSHB’s Jason Klein Breaks Down the Good, the Sad and the Funny Sides of Claims

Litigating Sexual Battery and Other Intentional Torts: Navigating the One Bad Apple in Medical Negligence

WSHB Partner Michelle Arbitrio to Moderate Panel on Insurance and Risk Management in the Age of Mass Shootings

Girl on Fire: The Price of Pursuing the Truth in the #MeToo World

Pragmatic Issues on Settlement Versus Trial for Legal Malpractice Cases

WSHB Partner Jade Tran Named to Lawyers of Color's "Nation's Best" List

A Withering Assault

The Natural Progression of Natural Disasters

Nevada’s Governor Signs Chapter 40 Reform Bill

WA Condo Law Changes Hope to Curtail Frivolous Defect Lawsuits and Stimulate Production

WSHB Co-Founder Stephen Henning Steps Into the Spotlight at this Year's West Coast Casualty Seminar

Professional Liability Expert Weighs In On Protecting Your Practice From Opioid Doc Arrest Fallout

Penalties, Punitives, and Granny Cams: The Escalating Lure of Elder Abuse Litigation

Are Structured Settlements Still Relevant

Game Changing Trends Affecting Construction

He's Not My Guy: The Joint-Employer Doctrine

WSHB Case Update: DOL Proposes Increase to Minimum Salary Threshold

WSHB and DWF Announce Exclusive Association

WSHB Case Update – California Supreme Court’s "Mixed-Motive" Decision Is A Mixed Bag For Employers

February 19, 2013

In a closely watched employment case, the California Supreme Court unanimously ruled that employees are not entitled to damages when discrimination factors into a termination if the termination would have occurred regardless of the discrimination.


Plaintiff Wynona Harris was hired as a bus driver trainee in October 2004 by the City of Santa Monica.  During her training and probationary period, she was involved in two accidents that the City deemed “preventable,” and she incurred two “miss-outs” for failing to report for her scheduled shift.

In May 2005, Ms. Harris informed her supervisor that she was pregnant.  Six days later, her employment was terminated.  Ms. Harris sued, claiming that she was terminated because she was pregnant.  The City asserted that it had a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the termination.

A jury found that Ms. Harris’ pregnancy was a motivating reason for the City’s employment decision, and awarded $177,905 in damages.  The trial court awarded attorney’s fees of $401,187.

On appeal, the City argued that the trial court’s refusal to give its requested instruction regarding its “mixed-motive” defense was prejudicial error.  The Court of Appeal agreed.  Ms. Harris appealed to the California Supreme Court.


In a 6-0 decision, the Court held that when a plaintiff has shown that discrimination was a substantial motivating factor for the termination, the employer is then entitled to demonstrate that legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons would have led to the same decision at that time.  If the employer proves that it would have made the same decision for lawful reasons, then the plaintiff is not entitled to recover damages, backpay, or reinstatement.  However, the plaintiff may be entitled to declaratory or injunctive relief, and may be eligible for attorney’s fees and costs.


The Fair Employment & Housing Act (“FEHA”) prohibits discrimination in employment.  Specifically, Government Code §12940(a) prohibits an employer from taking an adverse employment action “because of” a person’s protected status. 

CACI 2500 is the standard jury instruction that sets forth the essential factual elements a plaintiff must prove in an employment discrimination case.  It states that the plaintiff must prove that discrimination was “a motivating reason” for the employment decision.  However, until now, the degree of causation required by the “because of” language was unsettled.

After considering the legislative history and federal decisions, the Court held that a plaintiff must show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that “discrimination was a substantial motivating factor, rather that simply a motivating factor . . . .”  (Emphasis in original.)  The Court determined that the substantial motivating factor test satisfies the deterrent purpose of the FEHA, while also more effectively ensuring that liability will not be imposed based on evidence of mere thoughts or passing statements that are unrelated to the employment decision.

After the plaintiff satisfies this burden, the burden then shifts to the employer to show that it would have made the same decision regardless of any discrimination.  However, the employer does not satisfy its burden simply by establishing a legitimate and sufficient reason for the decision.  Instead, it must show that at the time it made the employment decision, it was motivated by legitimate reasons that would have resulted in the same employment decision, regardless of any discrimination. 

The Court acknowledged that finding that a plaintiff has satisfied its “substantial motivating factor” burden may result in an “unjustified windfall” for plaintiffs if the employer proves that it would have made the same decision regardless of discrimination.  In those cases, plaintiffs could recover backpay or an order of reinstatement, front pay, and future loss of income, in addition to non-economic damages.  At the same time, employers’ hands would be tied, as they would be forced to retain employees whose employment they would have terminated. 

Therefore, the Court held that if a plaintiff establishes that discrimination was a “substantial motivating factor” in the employment decision, and the employer then establishes that it would have made the same decision regardless of any discrimination, the plaintiff is not entitled to backpay, an order of reinstatement, or damages, including non-economic damages.  Instead, the employee may be entitled to a judicial declaration of the employer’s wrongdoing.  The trial court may also grant injunctive relief to stop discriminatory practices.  Finally, the plaintiff may be eligible for a discretionary award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, which would require the employer to absorb the litigation costs of its own wrongdoing but would avoid a windfall to plaintiffs.

Thus, the Court held that a jury in a “mixed-motive” case should be instructed that it must find that the employer’s action was substantially motivated by discrimination before the burden shifts to the employer to make a same-decision showing.  Juries should further be instructed that a same-decision showing precludes an award of reinstatement, backpay, or damages.


Until now, juries have been instructed according to CACI 2500, which states that an employment discrimination plaintiff must show that illegal discrimination was “a motivating factor” in the employment decision.  The Harris decision raises the burden of proof for plaintiffs in employment discrimination cases.  However, the ruling may not deter plaintiffs’ attorneys from bringing discrimination lawsuits, as they are still able to recover attorney’s fees if the plaintiff can establish that discrimination was a substantial motivating factor for the employment decision. 

Furthermore, FEHA plaintiffs often assert tort claims for Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy along with their FEHA-based claims.  These tort claims are generally duplicative of FEHA-based claims, but may now take on added significance, as the Court did not address whether or not the substantial motivating factor standard also applies to those claims.


Privacy Policy      |      Site Map

© 2020 Wood Smith Henning & Berman LLP

Subscribe to our mailing list

* indicates required