Statutes
Title VII subsection nixing bias "because of" race.
2000e-2(a)
In McDonald, the Court found that § 1981 also protected this racial group.
White people
In a mixed motive case, there are two of these, instead of one
Employer reasons for adverse action
In Hazen, the Court said a person who was fired right before his pension vested got this relief under ADEA.
None, as pension plan status or years of service are not in themselves based on age.
Title VII subsection nixing bias "motivated by" race.
2000e-2(m)
This case said §1981 protected the Arab "race" because "race" was understood differently in 1866.
Al-Khazraji
Title VII includes this topic that doesn't allow mixed motive claims
Retaliation
Reeves says this about using the pretext rule in ADEA cases.
It is permitted.
This is the first US anti-discrimination statute.
Civil Rights Act of 1866, or § 1981
Espinoza held there was no protection for this under Title VII.
Citizenship
This says class is the primary cause, but not necessarily the sole cause, for an adverse action.
"but for" causation
This case says a replacement over 40 actionable, if the age difference is "substantial."
O'Connor
Gross held ADEA does not allow mixed motive cases, as it is not subject to this.
§ 2000e-2(m), the "motivating factor" rule
In International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. US, the Court said this may be used as evidence of pretext.
Pattern or practice
This is often mistaken for "sole cause"
"but for" causation
Gross hold ADEA doesn't allow mixed motive cases, as it is not subject to this statutory subsection of Title VII.
2000e-2(m), or "the motivating factor" test