The employee need not show that a retaliatory motive was the sole motive for the adverse treatment. If an employee demonstrates that the employer was motivated at least in part by the plaintiff’s protected conduct, then under
Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa, 539 U.S. 90 (2003), the employee may prevail without necessitating the
McDonnell Douglas burden shifting analysis. Where the employer can show it would have made the same decision it did even without the presence of a retaliatory motive, the employee would still be entitled to declaratory
relief,
injunctive relief (not including hiring, reinstatement or promotion), attorneys fees and costs.
American Bar Association // Section of Labor and Employment Law
Equal Employment Opportunity Committee // EEO Law Basics // Spring 2006
