US-CA9 · jury_instructions
9th Cir. Model Jury Instr. (Civil) 10.18
Civil Rights—Title VII—Defense—After-Acquired Evidence
The defendant [name] contends that the defendant [name] would have made the same decision to [discharge] [not hire] [not promote] [demote] the plaintiff [name] because [describe the after-discovered misconduct]. If the defendant [name] proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant [name] could have made the same decision and [would have discharged] [would not have hired] [would not have promoted] [would have demoted] the plaintiff [name] because of [describe the after-discovered misconduct], you should limit any award of back pay to the date the employer would have made the decision to [[discharge] [not hire] [not promote] [demote]] the plaintiff [name] as a result of [describe the after-discovered misconduct].
Provenance
- Source
- ce9.uscourts.gov
- Retrieved
- 2026-08-20
- Edition
- 2026-08-20
- Content hash
b02c5df7cbd457f380ae6fba4b506c24503c8a0fe2d54e04cff74ef99516dc44
The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.
Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.