9.1.1 Elements of an ADA Claim— Disparate Treatment Mixed-Motive — Model In this case [plaintiff] is alleging that [defendant] [describe alleged disparate treatment] [plaintiff]. In order for [plaintiff] to recover on this discrimination claim against [defendant], [plaintiff] must prove that [defendant] intentionally discriminated against [plaintiff]. This means that [plaintiff] must prove that [his/her] [disability] was a motivating factor in [defendant's] decision [describe action] [plaintiff]. To prevail on this claim, [plaintiff] must prove all of the following by a preponderance of the evidence: First: [Plaintiff] has a within the meaning of the ADA. “disability” Second: [Plaintiff] is a able to perform the essential functions of “qualified individual” [specify the job or position sought]. Third: was a motivating factor in decision [describe [Plaintiff’s] [disability] [defendant’s] action] [plaintiff]. Although [plaintiff] must prove that [defendant] acted with the intent to discriminate on the basis of a disability, [plaintiff] is not required to prove that [defendant] acted with the particular intent to violate federal rights under the ADA. [plaintiff’s] In showing that [plaintiff's] [disability] was a motivating factor for action, [defendant’s] [plaintiff] is not required to prove that [his/her] [disability] was the sole motivation or even the primary motivation for [defendant's] decision. [Plaintiff] need only prove that [the disability] played a motivating part in [defendant's] decision even though other factors may also have motivated [defendant]. As used in this instruction, [disability] was a if [his/her] [plaintiff’s] “motivating factor” [disability] played a part [or played a role] in decision to [state adverse employment [defendant’s] action] [plaintiff]. [I will now provide you with more explicit instructions on the following statutory terms: Instruction 9.2.1 1. “Disability.” — See Instruction 9.2.2 ] 2. “Qualified” — [For use where defendant sets forth a affirmative defense: “same decision” If you find that [defendant's] treatment of [plaintiff] was motivated by both discriminatory
9.1.1 Elements of an ADA Claim— Disparate Treatment — Mixed-Motive Model In this case [plaintiff] is alleging that [defendant] [describe alleged disparate treatment] [plaintiff]. In order for [plaintiff] to recover on this discrimination claim against [defendant], [plaintiff] must prove that [defendant] intentionally discriminated against [plaintiff]. This means that [plaintiff] must prove that [his/her] [disability] was a motivating factor in [defendant's] decision [describe action] [plaintiff]. To prevail on this claim, [plaintiff] must prove all of the following by a preponderance of the evidence: First: [Plaintiff] has a “disability” within the meaning of the ADA. Second: [Plaintiff] is a “qualified individual” able to perform the essential functions of [specify the job or position sought]. Third: [Plaintiff’s] [disability] was a motivating factor in [defendant’s] decision [describe action] [plaintiff]. Although [plaintiff] must prove that [defendant] acted with the intent to discriminate on the basis of a disability, [plaintiff] is not required to prove that [defendant] acted with the particular intent to violate [plaintiff’s] federal rights under the ADA. In showing that [plaintiff's] [disability] was a motivating factor for [defendant’s] action, [plaintiff] is not required to prove that [his/her] [disability] was the sole motivation or even the primary motivation for [defendant's] decision. [Plaintiff] need only prove that [the disability] played a motivating part in [defendant's] decision even though other factors may also have motivated [defendant]. As used in this instruction, [plaintiff’s] [disability] was a “motivating factor” if [his/her] [disability] played a part [or played a role] in [defendant’s] decision to [state adverse employment action] [plaintiff]. [I will now provide you with more explicit instructions on the following statutory terms: 1. “Disability.” — Instruction 9.2.1 2. “Qualified” — See Instruction 9.2.2 ] [For use where defendant sets forth a “same decision” affirmative defense: If you find that [defendant's] treatment of [plaintiff] was motivated by both discriminatory
9_Chap_9_2015_July.docx