employed women, and other minorities throughout the United States. The opinion has several significant aspects. First, the case defines the respective evidentiary burdens of a plaintiff-employee and defendant-employer in a Title VIP suit, when the plaintiff-employee has shown that the defendant-employer's employment action resulted from a consideration of legitimate and illegitimate factors (i.e., "mixed motive case"). Second, the express allocation of the burdens of proof resolved a conflict among the various Courts of Appeals. Third, the Court failed to issue a majority opinion. This is significant in light of the current republican administration and its influence on what is now a conservative Court.
This Note will delineate the background and facts which led to the Court's decision in Price Waterhouse. The Note will discuss the opinions, current ramifications and its future impact on discrimination decisions of a more conservative Court.
Rossi, Gregory T.
"The Respective Burdens of Proof in Title VII Cases: Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins Confuses the Issue,"
Akron Law Review: Vol. 23:
2, Article 9.
Available at: https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview/vol23/iss2/9