Jacqueline Watson, Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (\Septa\), Appellee/cross-Appellant

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that the point of a mixed-motive theory is that a plaintiff may suffer discrimination even though there may also be a legitimate reason for the adverse employment action
• noting that employee’s disagreement with employer’s assessment of performance does not, without more, demonstrate a triable issue of fact
• holding the term “determinative factor” is appropriate when applying the burden-shifting framework in pretext cases
• noting that court is permitted to instruct jury that it may consider whether the “factual predicates necessary to establish the prima facie case have been shown”
• observing that the basis of the mixed-motive theory is that the plaintiff suffers discrimination even though there may also be a legitimate reason for the adverse action
• summarizing the distinction in standards of causation that apply to “pretext” and “mixed-motive” cases and concluding that the 1991 amendment to Title VII did not alter that distinction

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).