Cert denial on mixed-motive case hints at future victory for employees

Talk about a headache and a half. On May 18, the U.S. Supreme Court denied cert in an issue that has divided the appeals courts: mixed-motive claims at the summary judgment stage of an employment case. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, from whose ruling the cert was taken, took the intellectually honest approach in White v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., one that is pro-employee. Its bottom line: "In order to reach a jury, the plaintiff is not required to eliminate or rebut all possible legitimate motivations of the defendant [employer] as long as the plaintiff can demonstrate that an illegitimate discriminatory animus factored into the defendant's [employer's] decision  to take the adverse employment action." So, under this standard, no more summary judgments denied if the employer has three reasons for its decision and the employee can undermine only two of the three. Frankly, this is what the law -- the statute -- says. The law: If one motivation of the employer is based on discriminatory animus, then the case gets to the jury regardless of how many good, nondiscriminatory reasons the employer can cough up. This issue is huge. It is more important than all of the proposed laws of the Obama administration. This issue goes to the heart of how many cases get tossed at summary judgment and how many cases get to the jury. At day's end, the pro-employee forces will win. Why? That's what the statute says, and all the justices on the high court, from Scalia to Ginsburg, agree that it is the language of the law that controls. When the smoke clears, it will be the employees who come out on top. Bet on it.  If this was not the case, why would the high court deny the cert petition of the employer?