The Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Quigg v. Thomas County School District solidified the division among federal circuits over the appropriate summary judgment standard in individual disparate treatment mixed-motive cases based on circumstantial evidence. At the moment, the circuits have adopted, in varying degrees, four distinct approaches. In Part IV, this Note argues that the circuit courts have failed to articulate a summary judgment standard that satisfies Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, reflects the statutory language of 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000(e)-2(m) (2012), and recognizes that the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework “is fatally inconsistent with the mixed-motive theory of discrimination.” For mixed-motive cases, this Note proposes in Part V that an appropriate summary judgment framework can be articulated by merging and modifying the Fourth and Fifth Circuits’ standards with the framework adopted by the Sixth and the Eleventh Circuits. Ultimately, this Note proposes the adoption of the following standard: in a mixed-motive case, a plaintiff may survive a motion for summary judgment by presenting direct or circumstantial evidence that raises a genuine issue of material fact as to whether: (1) the defendant took an adverse employment action against the plaintiff; and (2) race, color, religion, sex, or national origin was a motivating factor for the defendant’s adverse employment action.

中文翻译：

---

混淆法院：巡回法院未能在混合动机的个人差别待遇索赔中阐明适当的简易判决标准

第十一巡回法院在 Quigg 诉托马斯县学区案中的决定巩固了联邦巡回法院之间在基于间接证据的个别不同待遇混合动机案件中适当的简易判断标准方面的分歧。目前，这些电路在不同程度上采用了四种不同的方法。在第四部分，本说明认为巡回法院未能阐明满足《联邦民事诉讼规则》第 56 条、反映 42 USCA § 2000(e)-2(m) (2012) 的法定语言的简易判决标准)，并承认麦克唐纳道格拉斯的负担转移框架“与歧视的混合动机理论严重不一致。” 对于混合动机的案件，本注释在第五部分提出，通过将第四和第五巡回法院的标准与第六和第十一巡回法院采用的框架合并和修改，可以阐明适当的简易判决框架。最终，本说明建议采用以下标准：在混合动机案件中，原告可以通过提出直接或间接证据来提出是否存在重大事实的真正问题，从而在简易判决动议中幸免于难：(1)被告对原告采取不利的雇佣行动；(2) 种族、肤色、宗教、性别或国籍是被告不利雇佣行为的动机。本说明建议采用以下标准：在混合动机案件中，原告可以通过提出直接或间接证据来提出是否存在重大事实的真正问题，即：(1) 被告采取了简易判决的动议。针对原告的不利雇佣诉讼；(2) 种族、肤色、宗教、性别或国籍是被告不利雇佣行为的动机。本说明建议采用以下标准：在混合动机案件中，原告可以通过提出直接或间接证据来提出是否存在重大事实的真正问题，即：(1) 被告采取了简易判决的动议。针对原告的不利雇佣诉讼；(2) 种族、肤色、宗教、性别或国籍是被告不利雇佣行为的动机。