10.2 Civil Rights-Title VII-Disparate Treatment-"Sole Reason"-Elements and Burden of Proof

• Category: Federal - Jury Instructions - 9th Circuit - Civil
• State: Multi-State
• Control #: US-JURY-9THCIR-10-2
• Format: Rich Text

Description

Sample Jury Instructions from the 9th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals. http://www3.ce9.uscourts.gov/jury-instructions/ 10.2 Civil Rights-Title VII-Disparate Treatment-"Sole Reason"-Elements and Burden of Proof is a type of legal theory used in cases of discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. It is based on the concept of disparate treatment, which is when an employer treats an employee or job applicant differently because of their race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or disability. The elements of this theory require the plaintiff to prove that the employer’s action was the sole reason for the adverse employment action. The burden of proof then falls on the plaintiff to show that the employer’s action was the sole cause of the adverse action and that other factors, such as qualifications or performance, were not the basis for the action. The plaintiff must also show that the employer’s action was intentional and not the result of a simple misunderstanding or oversight.

10.2 Civil Rights-Title VII-Disparate Treatment-"Sole Reason"-Elements and Burden of Proof is a type of legal theory used in cases of discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. It is based on the concept of disparate treatment, which is when an employer treats an employee or job applicant differently because of their race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or disability. The elements of this theory require the plaintiff to prove that the employer’s action was the sole reason for the adverse employment action. The burden of proof then falls on the plaintiff to show that the employer’s action was the sole cause of the adverse action and that other factors, such as qualifications or performance, were not the basis for the action. The plaintiff must also show that the employer’s action was intentional and not the result of a simple misunderstanding or oversight.