Case Citator › Mooney v. Aramco Services Co.

Mooney v. Aramco Services Co.

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

Abrogated
Court
Fifth Circuit
Citation
54 F.3d 1207
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
149 of 149
Citing cases (total)
451
Treatment dates
2003
Abrogated
A reviewed court treats this case as abrogated by later authority. Mooney v. Aramco Services Co. is abrogated in part by the confirmed treatment listed below. All 149 flagged citations have been read.
More on how this was screened

Direct review of Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa confirms that a Title VII plaintiff need not present direct evidence to obtain a mixed-motive instruction, abrogating Mooney's contrary direct-evidence rule. No other citing opinion independently treated Mooney adversely; the remaining opinions applied its unaffected FLSA and ADEA holdings or merely reported the Desert Palace history. Later Fifth Circuit opinions also explained that Mooney had avoided adopting the Lusardi collective-action method, rather than rejecting a Mooney holding.

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.

451 later cases cite Mooney v. Aramco Services Co.; 149 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 Mooney v. Aramco Services Co.?

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 abrogated Mooney's rule requiring direct evidence before a Title VII plaintiff may obtain a mixed-motive instruction.

    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 Mooney v. Aramco Services Co. 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