Home Menu ↓
Clicking on our sponsor links helps insure continued free access to this website.
Please support our efforts by visiting our sponsors:

 

Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa

Docket No.: 02-679
Certiorari Granted: Jan 10 2003
Argued: April 21, 2003
Decided: June 9, 2003

Topics:

Civil Rights Act of 1964, Civil Rights, 42 U.S.C. 2000e, Arbitration, Civil Rights Act, Civil Rights Act of 1964, First Amendment, Jury Instructions, RICO, Title VII, adverse employment action, adverse employment decision, antitrust, disparate treatment, judicial review, preemption, retaliation, sex discrimination

PartyNames: Desert Palace, Inc., dba Caesars Palace Hotel & Casino v. Catharina F. Costa
Petitioner: Desert Palace, Inc., dba Caesars Palace Hotel & Casino
Respondent: Catharina F. Costa

Court Below: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Citation: CA 9, 299 F.3d 838. QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Did the Ninth Circuit err in holding that direct evidence is not required in Title VIIcases to trigger the application of th e "mixed-motive" analysis set out in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989)? 2. What are the appropriate standards for lo wer courts to follow in making a direct evidence determination in "mixed-motive" cases under Title VII?
Lower Court Decision
Supreme Court Docket

Desert Palace, Inc., dba Caesars Palace Hotel & Casino
v.
Catharina F. Costa
539 U.S. 90 (2003)
Question:

Must a plaintiff present direct evidence of discrimination in order to obtain a mixed-motive instruction under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991?

Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa
ORAL ARGUMENT

April 21, 2003

Holding: affirmed
Decision: Decision: 9 votes for Costa, 0 vote(s) against

Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa
Case Documents

1Opinion in Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa
2Opinion in Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa
Additional documents for this case are pending review.