This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.
Subscribe to the Daily Journal for access to Daily Appellate Reports, Verdicts, Judicial Profiles and more...
You have to be a subscriber to view this page.

Labor/Employment

Feb. 7, 2012

Employment lawyers anticipate state Supreme Court's ruling on mixed-motive defense

The state Supreme Court has a new opportunity to address the mixed-motive defense in an employment case that has been fully briefed for more than a year, which means oral argument is likely to come this year.


By Laura Ernde


Daily Journal Staff Writer


At oral argument nearly 20 years ago, Paul Grossman pitched the state Supreme Court a hypothetical to illustrate what he and other employment defense lawyers perceived as an open question in California discrimination law.


In the example, a frail old lady asked to join a professional football team and the coach unleashed a tirade of vicious stereotypes before sending her on her way. Grossman argued the...

To continue reading, please subscribe.
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!

Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)

Already a subscriber?

Enewsletter Sign-up