Case Citator › Brinkley v. Harbour Recreation Club

Brinkley v. Harbour Recreation Club

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Abrogated
Court
Fourth Circuit
Citation
180 F.3d 598
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
49 of 49
Citing cases (total)
49
Treatment dates
2003
Abrogated
A reviewed court treats this case as abrogated by later authority. Brinkley v. Harbour Recreation Club was abrogated in part on the proof needed for a Title VII mixed motive claim. All 49 flagged citations have been read.
More on how this was screened

The Supreme Court held in Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa that a plaintiff need not present direct evidence to obtain a mixed motive instruction. McCray v. Pee Dee Regional Transportation Authority and other later opinions identify that change as affecting Brinkley on this point. Brinkley’s separate rulings on stray remarks, the connection between bias and an employment decision, and the Equal Pay Act remain available.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

49 later cases cite Brinkley v. Harbour Recreation Club; 49 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Brinkley v. Harbour Recreation Club?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Abrogated

  • The Supreme Court held that direct evidence is unnecessary for a Title VII mixed motive instruction, displacing Brinkley’s stricter proof route to that extent.

    Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    The question before us in this case is whether a plaintiff must present direct evidence of discrimination in order to obtain a mixed-motive instruction under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (1991 Act). We hold that direct evidence is not required.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Brinkley v. Harbour Recreation Club and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace