In certain instances, the evidence may show the employer acted on the basis of lawful and unlawful reasons.These are known as "mixed motive" cases.The Civil Rights Act of 1991 was amended to make clear that Title VII is violated when the complaining party demonstrates that race, color, religion, sex or national origin was a motivating factor, for any employment practice, even though other factors motivated the adverse action.The Civil Rights Act does not specify the sort of evidence required to establish that discrimination was a "motivating factor" in an employment decision.As a practical matter, direct evidence will be needed to establish that both legal and illegal motives were present.Typically, where the evidence is circumstantial, a mere inference of discrimination is created, which can be rebutted with evidence of a legitimate motive.A complaining party could prevail only if he / she proves that the asserted reason is worthy of belief or is a pretext for discrimination.Where there is direct evidence of discrimination, additional proof of a legitimate motive does not disprove the discriminatory motivation; rather, it shows that a mixture of motives was present.

Bob alleges that he was not promoted to a management position because of his sex.Through discovery available in the course of litigation, Bob learned that a company official, who was influential in evaluating candidates for promotion, told others that he did not believe a man could effectively manage women working in the lingerie department and that Bob was no exception.The company was unable to refute this direct evidence, but it established that Bob has less job-related experience than all the other candidates for promotion and this was a primary reason why he was rejected for the position.What do you think the most likely outcome of this case will be and why?