R.I. Gen. Laws
Rhode Island General Laws

R.I. Gen. Laws § 28-5-7.3 (2026)

Discriminatory practice need not be sole motivating factor

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section RI-LEGwebserver.rilegislature.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

An unlawful employment practice may be established in an action or proceeding under this chapter when the complainant demonstrates that race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, disability, age, or country of ancestral origin was a motivating factor for any employment practice, even though the practice was also motivated by other factors. Nothing contained in this section shall be construed as requiring direct evidence of unlawful intent or as limiting the methods of proof of unlawful employment practices under § 28-5-7.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1996–2022 · leading case: Carmella Bucci v. Hurd Buick Pontiac GMC Truck, LLC, 85 A.3d 1160 (R.I. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Carmella Bucci v. Hurd Buick Pontiac GMC Truck, LLC, 85 A.3d 1160 (R.I. 2014). · cites it 10× “” Section 28-5-7.3 (emphasis added). Thus, even if an employer can prove that an incident of poor work performance by an employee played a part in a termination, if the plaintiff- employee can show that discrimination also was a motivating factor, then a statutory claim exists.”
Beverly Ruth D'Aprile v. Fleet Servs. Corp., 92 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1996). “R.I. Gen. Laws § 28-5-7.3. Amici Rhode Island Commission for Human Rights, the Rhode Island Affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union and Rhode Island Protection and Advocacy System, Inc.”
City of Pawtucket, Police Div. v. Ricci, 692 A.2d 678 (R.I. 1997). · cites it 2× “See G.L.1956 §§ 28-5-7.3 and 28-5-24(1).”
Drumm v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., 701 F. Supp. 2d 200 (D.R.I. 2010). · cites it 2× “1992) (discussing the mixed motive theory embodied in R.I. Gen. Laws § 28-5-7.3). B. CYS’s Challenge to Plaintiffs Prima Facie Case Defendant first takes a swipe at the second leg of Plaintiffs proffered pri *208 ma facie showing.”
Travers v. Cotiviti, LLC (D.R.I. 2022). · cites it 2× “Laws § 28-5-7.3; See also Drumm v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.