Employment Litigation · Primary-source case analysis

Price Waterhouse: Mixed Motives and Proof of Discriminatory Causation

By Aneeta Mishra and Timothy Chan

Published May 1, 2026

Price Waterhouse is a foundational mixed-motive decision, but later legislation altered the consequence of a same-decision showing under Title VII.

Sex stereotyping entered the partnership process

Ann Hopkins produced evidence that evaluators relied on gender stereotypes when the accounting firm deferred her candidacy for partnership.

A motivating factor triggered the mixed-motive inquiry

The controlling opinions rejected a requirement that the prohibited consideration be the sole cause. Once the plaintiff established it played a part, the employer faced a same-decision issue.

Congress later changed the remedial framework

The Civil Rights Act of 1991 codified motivating-factor liability and limited remedies when an employer proves it would have taken the same action anyway. The original decision must therefore be read with the amended statute.

Disposition

The Court remanded because the lower court had not required the employer to prove the same-decision defense by a preponderance under the framework then governing.

Key takeaways

• Separate motivating-factor proof from sole causation.
• Identify evidence of stereotyping or prohibited criteria.
• Evaluate any same-decision evidence independently.
• Apply the current statutory remedies rather than the decision’s superseded consequence.