This form contains sample jury instructions, to be used across the United States. These questions are to be used only as a model, and should be altered to more perfectly fit your own cause of action needs.
New York Jury Instruction 1.2.1: Race And/Or Sex Discrimination Discharge — Failure To PromotIncludingin— - Same Decision Defense Race and sex discrimination in the workplace can have serious consequences for employees who face unfair treatment based on their race or gender. In cases where an employee alleges discrimination leading to discharge or failure to be promoted, the New York jury instruction 1.2.1 provides guidance on assessing the evidence and determining liability. This instruction specifically relates to situations where the employer claims the same decision would have been made regardless of race or sex, commonly known as the "same decision defense." The New York jury instruction 1.2.1 recognizes the importance of addressing race and sex discrimination in employment practices, which are prohibited by various federal and state laws. It prompts the jury to carefully consider the evidence surrounding the discharge or failure to promote and evaluate whether the decision was motivated by race or sex discrimination. The primary issue addressed by this instruction is dismissing or failing to promote an employee based on their race or sex. The instruction emphasizes that if the employee proves, by preponderance of the evidence, that race or sex was a "motivating factor" in the employment decision, the employer can still avoid liability by proving that the same decision would have been made in the absence of discriminatory intent. This defense is known as the "same decision defense" or "same decision" theory. The New York jury instruction 1.2.1 provides judges with explicit language to communicate this defense to the jury and guide them in their deliberations. It also emphasizes that the employer must show the same decision would have occurred, even if race or sex were not motivating factors, by providing evidence such as objective criteria, qualifications, or legitimate non-discriminatory reasons. Different types or variations of New York Jury Instruction 1.2.1 related to race and sex discrimination discharge or failure to promote may exist depending on the specific circumstances of the case, such as: 1. Same Decision Defense based on objective criteria: — When the employer argues that the decision was solely based on objective criteria, such as job performance, qualifications, or experience. 2. Same Decision Defense based on legitimate non-discriminatory reasons: — When the employer claims the decision was made for legitimate non-discriminatory reasons, unrelated to race or sex. 3. Same Decision Defense based on business necessity: — When the employer asserts that the decision was necessary for business reasons, which were not influenced by race or sex discrimination. 4. Same Decision Defense based on lack of discriminatory animus: — When the employer argues that there was no discriminatory intent or animus in making the decision. 5. Same Decision Defense based on absence of causal link: — When the employer contends that even if race or sex played a role, there is no causal link between the decision and the alleged discrimination. In summary, New York Jury Instruction 1.2.1 addresses the issue of race and sex discrimination in discharge or failure to promote cases, particularly focusing on the same decision defense. It enables juries to evaluate the evidence presented and determine whether the employer's defense is valid, considering various factors such as objective criteria, non-discriminatory reasons, business necessity, lack of discriminatory animus, or absence of a causal link.
New York Jury Instruction 1.2.1: Race And/Or Sex Discrimination Discharge — Failure To PromotIncludingin— - Same Decision Defense Race and sex discrimination in the workplace can have serious consequences for employees who face unfair treatment based on their race or gender. In cases where an employee alleges discrimination leading to discharge or failure to be promoted, the New York jury instruction 1.2.1 provides guidance on assessing the evidence and determining liability. This instruction specifically relates to situations where the employer claims the same decision would have been made regardless of race or sex, commonly known as the "same decision defense." The New York jury instruction 1.2.1 recognizes the importance of addressing race and sex discrimination in employment practices, which are prohibited by various federal and state laws. It prompts the jury to carefully consider the evidence surrounding the discharge or failure to promote and evaluate whether the decision was motivated by race or sex discrimination. The primary issue addressed by this instruction is dismissing or failing to promote an employee based on their race or sex. The instruction emphasizes that if the employee proves, by preponderance of the evidence, that race or sex was a "motivating factor" in the employment decision, the employer can still avoid liability by proving that the same decision would have been made in the absence of discriminatory intent. This defense is known as the "same decision defense" or "same decision" theory. The New York jury instruction 1.2.1 provides judges with explicit language to communicate this defense to the jury and guide them in their deliberations. It also emphasizes that the employer must show the same decision would have occurred, even if race or sex were not motivating factors, by providing evidence such as objective criteria, qualifications, or legitimate non-discriminatory reasons. Different types or variations of New York Jury Instruction 1.2.1 related to race and sex discrimination discharge or failure to promote may exist depending on the specific circumstances of the case, such as: 1. Same Decision Defense based on objective criteria: — When the employer argues that the decision was solely based on objective criteria, such as job performance, qualifications, or experience. 2. Same Decision Defense based on legitimate non-discriminatory reasons: — When the employer claims the decision was made for legitimate non-discriminatory reasons, unrelated to race or sex. 3. Same Decision Defense based on business necessity: — When the employer asserts that the decision was necessary for business reasons, which were not influenced by race or sex discrimination. 4. Same Decision Defense based on lack of discriminatory animus: — When the employer argues that there was no discriminatory intent or animus in making the decision. 5. Same Decision Defense based on absence of causal link: — When the employer contends that even if race or sex played a role, there is no causal link between the decision and the alleged discrimination. In summary, New York Jury Instruction 1.2.1 addresses the issue of race and sex discrimination in discharge or failure to promote cases, particularly focusing on the same decision defense. It enables juries to evaluate the evidence presented and determine whether the employer's defense is valid, considering various factors such as objective criteria, non-discriminatory reasons, business necessity, lack of discriminatory animus, or absence of a causal link.