Attorney fees not Available in Mixed Motive Retaliation Claims Under Title VII, Seventh Circuit Rules
1 min read
May 6, 2013
Under Title VII, in “mixed motive” discrimination cases (i.e., discrimination motivated in part, but not entirely, by an impermissible factor), an employer may limit Plaintiff’s recovery where it can show that it would have made the “same decision,” regardless of the impermissible motive. But the employer may still be compelled to reimburse the plaintiff’s costs and attorney fees.
In Carter v. Luminant Power Services Company, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeal determined that such cost-shifting did not apply where retaliation was a motivating factor, only to cases where “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin” was the motivating factor.
The ruling is good for employers, but it is unlikely to have any substantial effect on how employment cases are litigated. Retaliation is still subject to penalties under Title VII, as well as other state and federal laws, and the “mixed motive” theory, a compromise position, is not usually the primary theory espoused by either side.
Please contact the author to further discuss the issues addressed in this article.
Topics
Featured Insights

Press Release
Oct 22, 2025
Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP Launches New Website and Refreshed Brand

Press Release
Sep 26, 2025
Hinshaw Recognized as a “Leader in Litigation” in the BTI Consulting Litigation Outlook 2026 Survey

Privacy, Cyber & AI Decoded Alert
Sep 23, 2025
Fall 2025 Regulatory Roundup: Top U.S. Privacy and AI Developments for Businesses to Track

Press Release
Sep 15, 2025
Hinshaw Achieves 2024–2025 Mansfield Rule Certification Plus Status

In The News
Sep 5, 2025
Jessica Riley Reflects in a Law360 Story on Lessons She Learned as a Junior Lawyer

Press Release
Aug 25, 2025
Trial Spotlight: Hinshaw Prevails in ERISA Fiduciary Fraud Case





