The
Howard court was faced with the question of what type of analysis to apply to a
Batson challenge where the prosecutor conceded that race was a factor in his peremptory challenge decisions, but indicated that other factors were more significant.
Id. at 25. The trial court applied the
McDonnell Douglas/Burdine pretext framework, found that the prosecutor had articulated legitimate explanations which were not pretextual, and concluded that the individual had not established purposeful discrimination by the prosecutor.
Id. at 25–26. The Second Circuit decided, however, that because
Howard involved mixed motive, a
Mt. Healthy analysis should have been used instead. The critical distinction, as the Second Circuit sees it, is whether a pretext or mixed-motive situation is involved: the
Burdine pretext analysis applies when “the issue is the all-or-nothing question of whether or not an impermissible consideration motivated the challenged action,” whereas the
Mt. Healthy/Price Waterhouse framework applies in mixed-motive scenarios.
Id. at 27.