Harris v. City of Santa Monica
56 Cal. 4th 203
| Cal. | 2013Background
- Harris, a bus driver trainee for City of Santa Monica, was on probation as an at-will employee after promotion in 2004.
- She incurred two preventable accidents and had multiple miss-outs during probation, leading to documented performance concerns.
- Harris disclosed her pregnancy in May 2005; shortly after, the City listed her as not meeting standards and terminated her on May 18, 2005.
- Harris sued in October 2005 alleging FEHA sex discrimination based on pregnancy; City asserted legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for firing.
- At trial, City asked for a mixed-motives defense instruction; trial court refused; jury found pregnancy was a motivating factor and awarded damages.
- Court of Appeal reversed, holding mixed-motives instruction correct and that a damages award could be overturned; California Supreme Court granted review to decide the proper treatment of mixed motives under FEHA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What causation standard applies to FEHA's 'because of' clause in mixed-motive cases | Harris favors a substantial-motivating-factor standard (per FEHA) | City argues for a 'but-for' causation or complete defense via same-decision | Discrimination must be a substantial motivating factor; same-decision defense may preclude damages/backpay but not liability. |
| Is a same-decision showing a complete defense to liability in FEHA mixed-motive cases | A same-decision showing should not bar liability where discrimination was substantial | If employer would have acted the same, liability should be precluded for damages/backpay | No complete defense; remedies may be limited to declaratory/injunctive relief and attorney’s fees. |
| What remedies are available when discrimination was substantial but a same-decision defense applies | Plaintiff should obtain reinstatement/backpay despite same-decision | Reinstatement and backpay prohibited when same-decision defense shown | Reinstatement and backpay barred; declaratory/injunctive relief and reasonable attorney’s fees may be available. |
| What is the proper burden and standard of proof for the same-decision defense in FEHA mixed-motive cases | Employer should bear burden shifting; standard must be beyond mere preponderance | Preponderance standard is appropriate; no heightened standard | Preponderance of the evidence standard applies to the same-decision defense. |
Key Cases Cited
- Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 288 (U.S. Supreme Court 1989) (establishes burden-shifting when discrimination is motivating factor (not pure but-for))
- Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (U.S. Supreme Court 2009) (holds ADEA requires but-for causation, not motivating-factor standard; informs FEHA interpretation tensions)
- In re M.S., 10 Cal.4th 698 (Cal. 1995) (recognizes multiple concurrent causes; substantial factor sufficient for liability in some contexts)
- Mt. Healthy City Board of Education v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (U.S. Supreme Court 1977) (establishes burden-shifting when protected activity is a motivating factor)
- Williams v. City of Los Angeles, 47 Cal.3d 195 (Cal. 1988) (reinstatement not required when same decision would have occurred; distinguishes FEHA remedies)
- Bekiaris v. Board of Education, 6 Cal.3d 575 (Cal. 1972) (early recognition of balancing legitimate vs protected conduct in remedies)