Pennsylvania Jury Instruction — 1.2.1 Race and/or Sex Discrimination Discharge — Failure to PromotIncludingin— - Same Decision Defense: This Pennsylvania jury instruction addresses cases involving race and/or sex discrimination leading to discharge or failure to promote, specifically focusing on the same decision defense. The same decision defense refers to an employer's claim that regardless of discriminatory factors, they would have made the same decision in the absence of discrimination. In cases where an employee alleges race or sex discrimination as the reason for being discharged or not promoted, the plaintiff has the burden of proving the following elements by a preponderance of the evidence: 1. The plaintiff belongs to a specific race and/or sex protected by anti-discrimination laws. 2. The plaintiff was discharged or denied promotion. 3. The plaintiff's race and/or sex was a substantial motivating factor leading to the discharge or failure to promote. It means that the plaintiff's race and/or sex was a significant cause or factor in the employer's decision. 4. The defendant-employer has the opportunity to assert the same decision defense. 5. The plaintiff must prove that the defendant's explanation for the same decision defense is a pretext — meaning that it is false or not the real reason for the discharge or failure to promote. It is important to note that even if the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case (the minimum evidence required to support their claim), the defendant may still avoid liability if they can demonstrate the same decision defense. The same decision defense can be established by providing sufficient evidence that the employer would have made the same decision, even in the absence of any discriminatory factors. Different types of Pennsylvania Jury Instruction — 1.2.1 Race And Or Sex Discrimination Discharge — Failure To PromotIncludingin— - Same Decision Defense may include: 1. Direct evidence: Any direct or explicit statements, documents, or other evidence that indicate a clear discriminatory motive or intent regarding the plaintiff's race and/or sex that directly led to the discharge or failure to promote. 2. Circumstantial evidence: Indirect evidence that allows the jury to infer discriminatory intent through a logical chain of events or by considering the surrounding circumstances. This may include statistical evidence, patterns of conduct, or discriminatory practices within the workplace. 3. Pretextual evidence: Evidence presented by the plaintiff to prove that the employer's claimed non-discriminatory reason for the discharge or failure to promote is untrue or inadequate. This can be established by demonstrating inconsistencies, contradictions, or lack of credibility in the employer's explanation. Overall, this Pennsylvania jury instruction helps guide the jury in understanding the necessary elements of a race and/or sex discrimination case related to discharge or failure to promote, while considering the defendant's potential same decision defense.