The case of Desert Palace, Inc., DBA Caesars Palace Hotel & Casino v. Catharina F. Costa in 2002 revolved around the interpretation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act regarding mixed-motive employment discrimination claims. The plaintiff, Catharina F. Costa, alleged that she was discriminated against based on her gender when she was fired from her job at Caesar's Palace for allegedly not meeting performance standards and engaging in a physical altercation with a coworker - accusations which male employees were not terminated for under similar circumstances. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of Costa stating that direct evidence is not necessary to obtain a mixed-motive instruction under Title VII; circumstantial evidence can be used as well to prove that an employer had both legitimate and illegitimate reasons for its decision but acted upon the latter.

In the dissenting opinion for Desert Palace, Inc., DBA Caesars Palace Hotel & Casino v. Catharina F. Costa, Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, argued that the majority misinterpreted Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its amendments in 1991. They contended that Congress intended to maintain a distinction between 'mixed-motive' cases (where both legitimate and illegitimate reasons contributed to an employment decision) and 'pretext' cases (where employer's stated reason is not the real reason). The dissenters believed that direct evidence should be required in mixed-motive discrimination claims as it was before 1991 amendment. They also expressed concern about potential negative consequences of removing this requirement such as encouraging frivolous lawsuits or discouraging employers from documenting performance issues due to fear of litigation.