{"id":1318,"date":"2021-10-25T03:51:09","date_gmt":"2021-10-25T03:51:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/?page_id=1318"},"modified":"2022-05-05T17:15:19","modified_gmt":"2022-05-05T17:15:19","slug":"caci-2512-limitation-on-remedies-same-decision","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-2512-limitation-on-remedies-same-decision\/","title":{"rendered":"CACI 2512 Limitation on Remedies\u2014Same Decision"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<style type=\"text\/css\" data-created_by=\"avia_inline_auto\" id=\"style-css-av-kunzs1xy-c656d6ad13db541d05f097a9f050f4e8\">\n#top .av-special-heading.av-kunzs1xy-c656d6ad13db541d05f097a9f050f4e8{\npadding-bottom:10px;\n}\nbody .av-special-heading.av-kunzs1xy-c656d6ad13db541d05f097a9f050f4e8 .av-special-heading-tag .heading-char{\nfont-size:25px;\n}\n.av-special-heading.av-kunzs1xy-c656d6ad13db541d05f097a9f050f4e8 .av-subheading{\nfont-size:15px;\n}\n<\/style>\n<div  class='av-special-heading av-kunzs1xy-c656d6ad13db541d05f097a9f050f4e8 av-special-heading-h1 blockquote modern-quote  avia-builder-el-0  el_before_av_hr  avia-builder-el-first '><h1 class='av-special-heading-tag '  itemprop=\"headline\"  >CACI 2512 Limitation on Remedies\u2014Same Decision<\/h1><div class='av-subheading av-subheading_below'><p>California Civil Jury Instructions CACI<\/p>\n<\/div><div class=\"special-heading-border\"><div class=\"special-heading-inner-border\"><\/div><\/div><\/div>\n<div  class='hr av-av_hr-91d7ccd583a503147498e120fee2ff9b hr-default  avia-builder-el-1  el_after_av_heading  el_before_avia_sc_search '><span class='hr-inner '><span class=\"hr-inner-style\"><\/span><\/span><\/div>\n\n<style type=\"text\/css\" data-created_by=\"avia_inline_auto\" id=\"style-css-av-avia_sc_search-f7f83518637509acfac1c9900b84c1e7\">\n#top .avia_search_element.av-avia_sc_search-f7f83518637509acfac1c9900b84c1e7 .av_searchform_wrapper{\nborder-radius:0px 0px 0px 0px;\nborder-color:#edae44;\nbackground-color:#edae44;\n}\n#top .avia_search_element.av-avia_sc_search-f7f83518637509acfac1c9900b84c1e7 #s.av-input-field{\nborder-radius:0px 0px 0px 0px;\n}\n#top .avia_search_element.av-avia_sc_search-f7f83518637509acfac1c9900b84c1e7 #searchsubmit{\nborder-radius:0px 0px 0px 0px;\n}\n#top .avia_search_element.av-avia_sc_search-f7f83518637509acfac1c9900b84c1e7 .av_searchsubmit_wrapper{\nborder-radius:0px 0px 0px 0px;\n}\n.ajax_search_response.av-avia_sc_search-f7f83518637509acfac1c9900b84c1e7{\npadding:0px 0px 0px 0px;\nmargin:0px 0px 0px 0px;\n}\n<\/style>\n<div  class='avia_search_element av-avia_sc_search-f7f83518637509acfac1c9900b84c1e7  avia-builder-el-2  el_after_av_hr  el_before_av_textblock '><search><form action='https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/' id='searchform_element' method='get' class='' data-element_id='av-avia_sc_search-f7f83518637509acfac1c9900b84c1e7' ><div class='av_searchform_wrapper'><input type='search' value='' id='s' name='s' placeholder='Search CACI' aria-label='Search CACI' class='av-input-field ' required \/><div class='av_searchsubmit_wrapper '><input type='submit' value='Find' id='searchsubmit' class='button ' title='View results on search page' aria-label='View results on search page' \/><\/div><input type='hidden' name='numberposts' value='8' \/><input type='hidden' name='post_type' value='page' \/><input type='hidden' name='results_hide_fields' value='post_titles,meta,image' \/><\/div><\/form><\/search><\/div>\n<section  class='av_textblock_section av-av_textblock-e878f05c31dff72941bf1e49a00d9ff5 '   itemscope=\"itemscope\" itemtype=\"https:\/\/schema.org\/CreativeWork\" ><div class='avia_textblock'  itemprop=\"text\" ><ul>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/\">CACI Jury Instructions Index<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/caci-fillable-forms.crowdsourcelawyers.com\/\">App: CACI Jury Instructions Fillable Forms Word Format<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div><\/section>\n<div  class='hr av-av_hr-91d7ccd583a503147498e120fee2ff9b hr-default  avia-builder-el-4  el_after_av_textblock  el_before_av_textblock '><span class='hr-inner '><span class=\"hr-inner-style\"><\/span><\/span><\/div>\n\n<style type=\"text\/css\" data-created_by=\"avia_inline_auto\" id=\"style-css-av-kunzt7g9-3d05668529ab6a6eeaad6fdd8c5adc6d\">\n#top .av_textblock_section.av-kunzt7g9-3d05668529ab6a6eeaad6fdd8c5adc6d .avia_textblock{\nfont-size:20px;\n}\n<\/style>\n<section  class='av_textblock_section av-kunzt7g9-3d05668529ab6a6eeaad6fdd8c5adc6d '   itemscope=\"itemscope\" itemtype=\"https:\/\/schema.org\/CreativeWork\" ><div class='avia_textblock'  itemprop=\"text\" ><h2 class=\"SS_Banner\">2512\u00a0Limitation on Remedies\u2014Same Decision<\/h2>\n<hr \/>\n<p><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">[<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Name of plaintiff<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] claims that [he\/she\/<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">nonbinary pronoun<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] was [discharged\/[<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">other<\/span>\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">adverse employment action<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">]] because of [his\/her\/<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">nonbinary pronoun<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">protected status or action, e.g., race, gender, or age<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">], which is an unlawful [discriminatory\/retaliatory] reason. [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Name of defendant<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] claims that [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of plaintiff<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] [was discharged\/[<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">other<\/span>\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">adverse employment action<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">]] because of [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">specify reason, e.g., plaintiff\u2019s poor job performance<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">], which is a lawful reason.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">If you find that [discrimination\/retaliation] was a substantial motivating reason for [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of plaintiff<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">]\u2019s [discharge\/[<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">other<\/span>\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">adverse employment action<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">]], you must then consider [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of defendant<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">]\u2019s stated reason for the [discharge\/[<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">other<\/span>\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">adverse employment action<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">]].<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">If you find that [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">e.g., plaintiff\u2019s poor job performance<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] was also a substantial motivating reason, then you must determine whether the defendant has proven that [he\/she\/<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">nonbinary pronoun<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">\/it] would have [discharged\/[<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">other adverse employment action<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">]] [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of plaintiff<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] anyway at that time based on [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">e.g., plaintiff\u2019s poor job performance<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] even if [he\/she\/<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">nonbinary pronoun<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">\/it] had not also been substantially motivated by [discrimination\/retaliation].<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">In determining whether [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">e.g., plaintiff\u2019s poor job performance<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] was a substantial motivating reason, determine what actually motivated [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of defendant<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">], not what [he\/she\/<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">nonbinary pronoun<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">\/it] might have been justified in doing.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">If you find that [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of defendant<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] [discharged\/[<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">other<\/span>\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">adverse employment action<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">]] [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of plaintiff<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] for a [discriminatory\/retaliatory] reason, you will be asked to determine the amount of damages that [he\/she\/<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">nonbinary pronoun<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] is entitled to recover. If, however, you find that [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of defendant<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] would have [discharged\/[<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">other<\/span>\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">adverse employment action<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">]] [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of plaintiff<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] anyway at that time for [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">specify defendant\u2019s nondiscriminatory\/nonretaliatory reason<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">], then [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of plaintiff<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] will not be entitled to reinstatement, back pay, or damages. <br class=\"avia-permanent-lb\" \/><br class=\"avia-permanent-lb\" \/><\/span><\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<div class=\"SS_Note\">\n<h2 class=\"SS_HideShowSection SS_Expandable\"><\/h2>\n<div id=\"TRNotes_n_1\">\n<p><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">New December 2013; Revised June 2015, June 2016 <br class=\"avia-permanent-lb\" \/><br class=\"avia-permanent-lb\" \/><\/span><\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/\">Crowdsource Lawyers<\/a><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\">https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci<\/a><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\"><br class=\"avia-permanent-lb\" \/><\/span><\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"SS_Note\">\n<h2 class=\"SS_HideShowSection SS_Expandable\">Directions for Use<\/h2>\n<div id=\"TRNotes_n_2\">\n<p>Give this instruction along with\u00a0CACI No. 2507,\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">\u201cSubstantial Motivating Reason\u201d Explained<\/span>, if the employee has presented sufficient evidence for the jury to find that the employer took adverse action against him or her for a prohibited reason, but the employer has presented sufficient evidence for the jury to find that it had a legitimate reason for the action. In such a \u201cmixed-motive\u201d case, the employer is relieved from an award of damages, but may still be liable for attorney fees and costs and injunctive relief. (See\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Harris v. City of Santa Monica<\/span>\u00a0(2013) 56 Cal.4th 203, 211 [152 Cal.Rptr.3d 392, 294 P.3d 49].)<\/p>\n<p>Mixed-motive must be distinguished from pretext though both require evaluation of the same evidence, i.e., the employer\u2019s purported legitimate reason for the adverse action. In a pretext case, the only actual motive is the discriminatory one and the purported legitimate reasons are fabricated in order to disguise the true motive. (See\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">City and County of San Francisco v. Fair Employment and Housing Com.<\/span>\u00a0(1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 976, 985 [236 Cal.Rptr. 716].) The employee has the burden of proving pretext. (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Harris, supra,<\/span>\u00a056 Cal.4th at pp. 214\u2013215.) If the employee proves discrimination or retaliation and also pretext, the employer is liable for all potential remedies including damages. But if the employee proves discrimination or retaliation but fails to prove pretext, then a mixed-motive case is presented. To avoid an award of damages, the employer then has the burden of proving that it would have made the same decision anyway solely for the legitimate reason, even though it may have also discriminated or retaliated. <br class=\"avia-permanent-lb\" \/><br class=\"avia-permanent-lb\" \/><\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"SS_Note\">\n<h2 class=\"SS_HideShowSection SS_Expandable\">Sources and Authority<\/h2>\n<div id=\"TRNotes_n_3\">\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c[U]nder the FEHA, when a jury finds that unlawful discrimination was a substantial factor motivating a termination of employment, and when the employer proves it would have made the same decision absent such discrimination, a court may not award damages, backpay, or an order of reinstatement. But the employer does not escape liability. In light of the FEHA\u2019s express purpose of not only redressing but also preventing and deterring unlawful discrimination in the workplace, the plaintiff in this circumstance could still be awarded, where appropriate, declaratory relief or injunctive relief to stop discriminatory practices. In addition, the plaintiff may be eligible for reasonable attorney\u2019s fees and costs.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Harris, supra,<\/span>\u00a056 Cal.4th at p. 211.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cBecause employment discrimination litigation does not resemble the kind of cases in which we have applied the clear and convincing standard, we hold that preponderance of the evidence is the standard of proof applicable to an employer\u2019s same-decision showing\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Harris, supra,<\/span>\u00a053 Cal.4th at p. 239.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c[W]hen we refer to a same-decision showing, we mean proof that the employer, in the absence of any discrimination, would have made the same decision\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">at the time it made its actual decision<\/span>.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Harris, supra,<\/span>\u00a056 Cal.4th at p. 224, original italics.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cIn light of today\u2019s decision, a jury in a mixed-motive case alleging unlawful termination should be instructed that it must find the employer\u2019s action was substantially motivated by discrimination before the burden shifts to the employer to make a same-decision showing, and that a same-decision showing precludes an award of reinstatement, backpay, or damages.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Harris, supra,<\/span>\u00a056 Cal.4th at p. 241.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cWe do not suggest that discrimination must be alone sufficient to bring about an employment decision in order to constitute a substantial motivating factor. But it is important to recognize that discrimination can be serious, consequential, and even by itself determinative of an employment decision without also being a \u2018but for\u2019 cause.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Harris, supra,<\/span>\u00a056 Cal.4th at p. 229.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c[A] plaintiff has the initial burden to make a prima facie case of discrimination by showing that it is more likely than not that the employer has taken an adverse employment action based on a prohibited criterion. A prima facie case establishes a presumption of discrimination. The employer may rebut the presumption by producing evidence that its action was taken for a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason. If the employer discharges this burden, the presumption of discrimination disappears. The plaintiff must then show that the employer\u2019s proffered nondiscriminatory reason was actually a pretext for discrimination, and the plaintiff may offer any other evidence of discriminatory motive. The ultimate burden of persuasion on the issue of discrimination remains with the plaintiff.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Harris, supra,<\/span>\u00a056 Cal.4th at pp. 214\u2013215.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cIn some cases there is no single reason for an employer\u2019s adverse action, and a discriminatory motive may have influenced otherwise legitimate reasons for the employment decision. In\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Harris v. City of Santa Monica<\/span>\u00a0(<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Harris<\/span>) the California Supreme Court recognized the traditional\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">McDonnell Douglas<\/span>\u00a0burden-shifting test was intended for use in cases presenting a single motive for the adverse action, that is, in \u2018cases that do not involve mixed motives.\u2019 As the Court explained, this \u2018framework \u2026 presupposes that the employer has a single reason for taking an adverse action against the employee and that the reason is either discriminatory or legitimate. By hinging liability on whether the employer\u2019s proffered reason for taking the action is genuine or pretextual, the\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">McDonnell Douglas<\/span>\u00a0inquiry aims to ferret out the \u201ctrue\u201d reason for the employer\u2019s action. In a mixed-motives case, however, there is no single \u201ctrue\u201d reason for the employer\u2019s action.\u2019\u2009\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Husman v. Toyota Motor Credit Corp.<\/span>\u00a0(2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 1168, 1182 [220 Cal.Rptr.3d 42], internal citations omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cFollowing the California Supreme Court\u2019s decision in\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Harris,<\/span>\u00a0\u2026 the Judicial Council added\u00a0CACI No. 2512, to be given when the employer presents evidence of a legitimate reason for the adverse employment action, informing the jurors that even if they find that discrimination was a substantial motivating reason for the adverse action, if the employer establishes that the adverse action nonetheless would have been taken for legitimate reasons, \u2018then [the plaintiff] will not be entitled to reinstatement, back pay, or damages.\u2019\u2009\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Davis v. Farmers Ins. Exchange<\/span>\u00a0(2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 1302, 1320\u22121321 [200 Cal.Rptr.3d 315].)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c\u2009\u2018[Plaintiff] further argues that for equitable reasons, an employer that wishes to make a same-decision showing must concede that it had mixed motives for taking the adverse employment action instead of denying a discriminatory motive altogether. But there is no inconsistency when an employer argues that its motive for discharging an employee was legitimate, while also arguing, contingently, that if the trier of fact finds a mixture of lawful and unlawful motives, then its lawful motive alone would have led to the discharge.\u2019\u2009\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Thornbrough v. Western Placer Unified School Dist.<\/span>\u00a0(2013) 223 Cal.App.4th 169, 199 [167 Cal.Rptr.3d 24]\u00a0[quoting\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Harris, supra<\/span>, 56 Cal.App.4th at p. 240].)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cAs a preliminary matter, we reject [defendant]\u2019s claim that the jury could have found no liability on the part of [defendant] had it been properly instructed on the mixed-motive defense at trial. As discussed, the Supreme Court in\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Harris<\/span>\u00a0held that the mixed-motive defense is available under the FEHA, but only as a limitation on remedies and not as a complete defense to liability. Consequently, when the plaintiff proves by a preponderance of the evidence that discrimination was a substantial motivating factor in the adverse employment decision, the employer is liable under the FEHA. When the employer proves by a preponderance of the evidence that it would have made the same decision even in the absence of such discrimination, the employer is still liable under the FEHA, but the plaintiff\u2019s remedies are then limited to declaratory or injunctive relief, and where appropriate, attorney\u2019s fees and costs. As presently drafted, BAJI No. 12.26 does not accurately set forth the parameters of the defense as articulated by the Supreme Court, but rather states that, in a mixed-motive case, \u2018the employer is not liable if it can establish by a preponderance of the evidence that its legitimate reason, standing alone, would have induced it to make the same decision.\u2019 By providing that the mixed-motive defense, if proven, is a complete defense to liability, [defendant]\u2019s requested instruction directly conflicts with the holding in\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Harris<\/span>. (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Alamo v. Practice Management Information Corp.<\/span>\u00a0(2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 466, 481 [161 Cal.Rptr.3d 758], internal citations omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cPretext may \u2026 be inferred from the timing of the company\u2019s termination decision, by the identity of the person making the decision, and by the terminated employee\u2019s job performance before termination.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc.<\/span>\u00a0(2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 243, 272 [100 Cal.Rptr.3d 296].) <br class=\"avia-permanent-lb\" \/><br class=\"avia-permanent-lb\" \/><\/span><\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<h2 class=\"SS_Heading\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\"><span class=\"SS_ib\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_ib\">Secondary Sources<\/span><\/span><\/h2>\n<div>8 Witkin, Summary of California Law (11th ed. 2017) Constitutional Law, \u00a7\u00a7\u20091037, 1067<\/div>\n<div>7 Witkin, California Procedure (5th ed. 2008), Judgment \u00a7\u2009217<\/div>\n<div>3\u00a0Wilcox, California Employment Law, Ch. 41,\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Substantive Requirements Under Equal Employment Opportunity Laws<\/span>, \u00a7\u200941.11\u00a0(Matthew Bender)<\/div>\n<div>11\u00a0California Forms of Pleading and Practice, Ch. 115,\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Civil Rights: Employment Discrimination<\/span>, \u00a7\u2009115.23\u00a0(Matthew Bender)<\/div>\n<div class=\"SS_Note\">\n<div id=\"TRNotes_n_3\"><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div><\/section>\n<div  class='hr av-6wbaae-fabd486eb82f01e738e70c77d6089f25 hr-default  avia-builder-el-6  el_after_av_textblock  el_before_av_textblock '><span class='hr-inner '><span class=\"hr-inner-style\"><\/span><\/span><\/div>\n\n<style type=\"text\/css\" data-created_by=\"avia_inline_auto\" id=\"style-css-av-68ut1y-d153c560d8f937bdfc380a7af5a64776\">\n#top .av_textblock_section.av-68ut1y-d153c560d8f937bdfc380a7af5a64776 .avia_textblock{\nfont-size:22px;\n}\n<\/style>\n<section  class='av_textblock_section av-68ut1y-d153c560d8f937bdfc380a7af5a64776 '   itemscope=\"itemscope\" itemtype=\"https:\/\/schema.org\/CreativeWork\" ><div class='avia_textblock'  itemprop=\"text\" ><p><a href=\"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/\">CrowdSourceLawyers.com<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div><\/section>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-1318","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.4 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>CACI 2512 Limitation on Remedies\u2014Same Decision - Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-2512-limitation-on-remedies-same-decision\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"CACI 2512 Limitation on Remedies\u2014Same Decision - Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-2512-limitation-on-remedies-same-decision\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2022-05-05T17:15:19+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/caci-2512-limitation-on-remedies-same-decision\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/caci-2512-limitation-on-remedies-same-decision\\\/\",\"name\":\"CACI 2512 Limitation on Remedies\u2014Same Decision - Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2021-10-25T03:51:09+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2022-05-05T17:15:19+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/caci-2512-limitation-on-remedies-same-decision\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/caci-2512-limitation-on-remedies-same-decision\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/caci-2512-limitation-on-remedies-same-decision\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/home\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"CACI 2512 Limitation on Remedies\u2014Same Decision\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/\",\"name\":\"Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI\",\"description\":\"California Civil Jury Instructions CACI site\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"CrowdSource Lawyers\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/2\\\/2021\\\/09\\\/CrowdSource-Logo.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/2\\\/2021\\\/09\\\/CrowdSource-Logo.png\",\"width\":453,\"height\":208,\"caption\":\"CrowdSource Lawyers\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"CACI 2512 Limitation on Remedies\u2014Same Decision - Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-2512-limitation-on-remedies-same-decision\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"CACI 2512 Limitation on Remedies\u2014Same Decision - Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI","og_url":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-2512-limitation-on-remedies-same-decision\/","og_site_name":"Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI","article_modified_time":"2022-05-05T17:15:19+00:00","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-2512-limitation-on-remedies-same-decision\/","url":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-2512-limitation-on-remedies-same-decision\/","name":"CACI 2512 Limitation on Remedies\u2014Same Decision - Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/#website"},"datePublished":"2021-10-25T03:51:09+00:00","dateModified":"2022-05-05T17:15:19+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-2512-limitation-on-remedies-same-decision\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-2512-limitation-on-remedies-same-decision\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-2512-limitation-on-remedies-same-decision\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/home\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"CACI 2512 Limitation on Remedies\u2014Same Decision"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/#website","url":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/","name":"Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI","description":"California Civil Jury Instructions CACI site","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/#organization","name":"CrowdSource Lawyers","url":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2021\/09\/CrowdSource-Logo.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2021\/09\/CrowdSource-Logo.png","width":453,"height":208,"caption":"CrowdSource Lawyers"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1318","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1318"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1318\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3802,"href":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1318\/revisions\/3802"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1318"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}