Pinkerton v. Spellings, Secretary, U.S. Dept. of Education

529 F.3d 513

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

May 27, 2008

Facts of the Case:

Mr. Pinkerton, an individual with arthrogryposis (which causes developmental abnormalities such as shortness of limbs, deformed joints, and limitations of motion), wasemployed by the U.S. Department of Education (DOE).The DOEdischarged him for unacceptable performance.

He filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission(EEOC),alleging retaliation and discrimination,which resulted in a finding of no discrimination. He then brought suit alleging disability discrimination under Sections 501 and 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, claiming he was terminated and retaliated against because of his disability. The U.S. District Court instructed the jury that to recover, the plaintiff had to prove that his disability was the sole cause of discrimination. The jury found in favor of the DOE.

Issues of the Case:

What burden of proof must a plaintiff carry to show causation between disability discrimination and an adverse employment decision under Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act?

Arguments:

Mr. Pinkertonargued that Section 501 uses the same “mixed-motive” causation standard as the ADA.Thus, the district court should have instructed the jury to determine not whether the plaintiff was terminated “solely because of his disability” but whether disability was a “motivating factor” in the termination decision. The DOE responded that Section 501 uses the same “sole reason” standard as Section 504.

Ruling:

The Fifth Circuitheld that the “motivating factor” test was the appropriate standard under Section 501. It therefore reversed the decision and remanded the case back to the district court. The court reasoned that Section 501(g) explicitly incorporates the ADA standards fordetermining whether this section was violated. The Court agreed with the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in McNely v. Ocala Star-Banner Corp.(1996), whichreviewed the ADA’s legislative history and Supreme Court precedent toconclude that the ADA’s language conveys the idea of a factor that makes a difference in the outcome and not one that isthe sole cause of the outcome.

Policy & Practice:

Burdens of proof:

Courts have inconsistently applied the ADA’s use of causal language such as, “because of,” “by reason of,” and “because” to mean “solely because of disability” or as a “motivating factor.”

Plaintiffs alleging discrimination under § 501 have a more lenient causation standard to meet (the motivating factor test) than under § 504 (the sole reason standard). This makes § 501 more analogous to the way the ADA has been interpreted.

Links:

  • Pinkerton v. Spellings, 529 F.3d 513 (5th Cir. 1998)
  • McNely v. Ocala Star-Banner Corp., 99 F.3d 1068 (11th Cir. 1996)

Prepared by the legal research staff of the Burton Blatt Institute (BBI): Centers of Innovation on Disability at Syracuse University ( for the DBTAC: Southeast ADA Center (Southeast DBTAC) ( This document does not provide legal advice. If you have further questions about the issues of this case that relate to you, please consult an attorney licensed in your state.