Legal Definitions - Mixed-Motive Instruction

A Mixed-Motive Instruction is a directive given by a judge to a jury in certain legal cases, most commonly those involving claims of discrimination or improper retaliation. This instruction applies when there is evidence suggesting that a defendant's decision or action (such as firing an employee, denying a promotion, or refusing to rent property) was influenced by both a legally impermissible reason and a legitimate, permissible reason.

The instruction typically guides the jury as follows: If the plaintiff proves that an impermissible reason (like discrimination based on race, gender, or age, or retaliation for a protected activity) played a role in the defendant's decision, then the burden shifts to the defendant. The defendant must then demonstrate that they would have taken the exact same action for the legitimate reason, regardless of the impermissible motive. If the defendant successfully proves this, they may avoid liability, even if the impermissible motive was present.

Here are some examples to illustrate how a Mixed-Motive Instruction works:

• Example 1: Employment Termination

  Imagine a company fires an employee who is over 60 years old. The employee sues, alleging age discrimination. During the trial, evidence emerges that some managers made comments about the employee being "set in their ways" and "resistant to new technology" (potentially indicating an age bias). However, the company also presents documented evidence that the employee consistently failed to meet sales targets for the past year and received multiple warnings about their performance.

  In this scenario, a Mixed-Motive Instruction would tell the jury: If you find that the employee's age was a motivating factor in the decision to fire them, you must then consider whether the company has proven that it would have fired the employee anyway due to their documented poor sales performance, even if age had not been a factor. If the company can prove this, they might not be found liable for age discrimination.

• Example 2: Housing Discrimination

  Consider a landlord who refuses to rent an apartment to a prospective tenant who uses a wheelchair. The tenant sues, claiming disability discrimination. The landlord, however, argues that their refusal was based on the tenant's poor credit history and a negative reference from a previous landlord regarding property damage, both of which are legitimate reasons to deny a rental application.

  A Mixed-Motive Instruction would guide the jury to first determine if the tenant's disability played any role in the landlord's decision. If it did, the jury would then assess whether the landlord has demonstrated that they would have denied the rental application regardless, solely based on the tenant's credit history and past property damage issues. If the landlord can prove this, they might not be held liable for disability discrimination.

• Example 3: Retaliation for Whistleblowing

  A government employee reports unethical conduct by their supervisor to an internal oversight committee (a protected whistleblowing activity). Shortly after, the employee is transferred to a less desirable department with fewer opportunities for advancement. The employee claims this transfer was retaliation for their report. The agency, however, asserts that the transfer was part of a legitimate, pre-planned departmental restructuring aimed at improving efficiency, and that the employee's skills were a better fit for the new department.

  Here, a Mixed-Motive Instruction would direct the jury: If you find that the employee's whistleblowing activity was a motivating factor in the decision to transfer them, you must then consider whether the agency has proven that it would have transferred the employee anyway as part of the legitimate departmental restructuring, even without the whistleblowing report. If the agency can establish this, they might not be found liable for retaliation.