1. In a "mixed-motive" age discrimination case -- where both legitimate and illegitimate reasons motivated the employment decision, should the employer be permitted to avoid liability if proves that it would have taken the same action anyway?
2. What kind of evidence needs to be presented -- direct or circumstantial -- to prove a "mixed-motive" case?
3. Does the discriminatory reason need to be a "substantial reason" or "a motivating reason" for the employee to prevail?
4. Which party bears the burden of proof?

In the 1989 Price Waterhouse decision, the plaintiff Ann Hopkins presented direct evidence (as opposed to circumstantial evidence) that she was discriminated against when she was denied a promotion to partnership. The defendant basically said that even though it may have discriminated, it would have reached the same result anyway in denying Ms. Hopkins her promotion.

In it's fractured decision, the Supreme Court came up with a new way of proving discrimination in what it called a "mixed-motive" case. Simply said, this new method of proof set forth a complicated and confusing burden shifting framework.

After the Price Waterhouse decision, courts began allowing employers who used illegal factors in employment decisions to avoid liability by merely showing that they would have made the same decision anyway even without considering the unlawful factor.

In other words, the unintended consequence of the decision was that employers were getting off the hook in the face of direct evidence of discrimination.

• the employer is not absolved of liability in "mixed-motive cases" even if it proves it would have made the same decision anyway, but damages to the employee are restricted.

• in order to take advantage of the mixed-motive theory and shift the burden to the defendant, the plaintiff must "demonstrate" that race, color, religion, sex, or national origin was a motivating factor for any employment practice, even though other factors also motivated the practice

Title VII's silence with respect to the type of evidence required in mixed-motive cases . . . suggests that we should not depart from the "[c]onventional rul[e] of civil litigation [that] generally appl[ies] in Title VII cases." ... That rule requires a plaintiff to prove his case "by a preponderance of the evidence," . . . by using "direct or circumstantial evidence," Postal Service Bd. of Governors v. Aikens,460 U.S. 711, 714, n. 3 (1983).

One argument, likely to be favored by conservative justices like Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito, is a textualist approach arguing that Congress knew what it was doing, could have expressly included the ADEA in the CRA of 1991, but chose not to for whatever reason. If we are unhappy with the current state of affairs, the argument continues, the proper approach is to allow Congress to amend the CRA of 1991 to include ADEA claims.

• Plaintiffs are going to present all the evidence they have whether it's direct or circumstantial, or both.

• Most of us who represent employees have never seen the benefit of getting a "mixed motive" instruction even when we have direct evidence of discrimination because it's too confusing to the jury.

• It's just a much easier and better standard for employees in discrimination cases to have to prove by a preponderance of the evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, that age, race, sex, religion, national origin, or disability was a motivating factor in the adverse employment decision.