In logic, what does the term “appeal to emotion“ mean, and how does it apply to employment-law trial lawyers handling workplace disputes? Here’s my point of view.
IMPORTANT: All hyperlinks in this article with an asterisk (*) will take the reader away from this website to either our Williams Law Group Blog*, an official governmental website, or a well-recognized organization. This article is for informational purposes only and is based upon my point of view. Due to the rapidly changing nature of the law, we make no warranty or guarantee concerning the accuracy or reliability of the content in this article. No content on this site, regardless of date, should ever be used as a substitute for direct legal advice from your attorney. Please review our Disclaimer|Terms of Use|Privacy Policy before proceeding.
Advertisement
Appeal to Emotion: Understanding Its Role in Washington Employment Discrimination Cases
What Does “Appeal to Emotion” Mean?
In logic and rhetoric, an “appeal to emotion” describes an attempt to persuade an audience by eliciting an emotional response rather than relying primarily on facts and reason.
That concept deserves some nuance in an employment-discrimination case. Workplace discrimination can be intensely personal. An employee may lose a job, a promotion, professional opportunities, income, or a sense of belonging at work. Those experiences can understandably produce anger, embarrassment, fear, or sadness.
The presence of emotion, however, does not automatically make an argument an improper appeal to emotion. The more important question is whether the emotional response is grounded in the evidence or is being used instead of evidence.
video Example: Appeal to Emotion
Why Emotion Can Matter in a Discrimination Case
For many people, employment represents much more than a source of income. A person’s work may be closely tied to financial stability, professional identity, family responsibilities, and personal dignity.
Washington’s Law Against Discrimination, chapter 49.60* RCW, reflects the state’s public policy against certain forms of discrimination and protects employees from discrimination in employment based on specified protected characteristics.
Consequently, the human consequences of alleged discrimination can be relevant to understanding a plaintiff‘s experience and, depending on the claim and evidence, to establishing damages. A plaintiff’s attorney does not have to strip the case of its human dimension in order to present it professionally.
The key is to allow the evidence to establish what happened and then allow the jury to appreciate the significance of those events.
Emotion Cannot Replace Evidence
A plaintiff does not establish employment discrimination merely by demonstrating that an employer‘s conduct was hurtful. The attorney must still present evidence supporting the elements of the particular claim.
That evidence might include communications from decision-makers, employment records, testimony from coworkers, differences in how employees were treated, the timing of significant events, or inconsistencies in the employer’s explanation for an employment decision.
Those facts can be persuasive on their own. They can also have an emotional impact because they describe something that happened to a real person.
Washington’s Evidence Rule 403* illustrates the distinction. Relevant evidence can be excluded when its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. The concern is not simply that evidence may cause an emotional reaction; rather, the concern is that emotion could cause a factfinder to decide the case for an improper reason instead of evaluating the evidence rationally.
For plaintiff’s counsel, that distinction is important. A compelling presentation should invite the jury to consider the evidence carefully—not ask jurors to disregard the evidence in favor of sympathy.
Telling the Plaintiff’s Story
An employment-discrimination trial involves more than isolated events. The surrounding circumstances can help a jury understand why particular facts matter.
Suppose, for example, that an employee alleges she was treated differently because of a protected characteristic. Her attorney may present evidence concerning how she performed her job, what happened after a particular decision-maker learned of the protected characteristic, how coworkers were treated in comparable circumstances, and what explanation the employer later provided for its actions.
The plaintiff’s personal experience gives those facts context.
If, for example, the evidence shows that an employee lost an important opportunity after years of work, or that she was subjected to degrading treatment before ultimately losing her position, the jury may naturally recognize the seriousness of what occurred. The attorney does not need to manufacture that reaction.
In a strong case, the emotional significance comes from the facts themselves.
When Emotion Becomes a Distraction
The phrase “appeal to emotion” can sometimes be used to suggest that a plaintiff‘s feelings have no place in the courtroom. That is too broad.
A plaintiff’s emotional response does not prove discrimination, but neither does being emotional disprove it. Someone who believes she was unlawfully treated may understandably experience frustration, anger, anxiety, or hurt.
The central questions remain factual and legal:
-
- What actually happened?
- Who made the relevant decisions?
- What did those individuals know?
- Were similarly situated employees treated differently?
- Did the employer’s explanation change or conflict with the evidence?
- What consequences did the plaintiff experience?
Those questions keep the jury focused on the issues that matter while still allowing the jury to understand the human consequences of the alleged conduct.
The Plaintiff’s Attorney’s Balancing Act
For plaintiff’s counsel, effective advocacy requires finding the right balance.
An attorney who presents only dry facts may fail to communicate the significance of the discrimination to the person who experienced it. On the other hand, an argument centered almost entirely on indignation or sympathy risks distracting the jury from the evidence needed to establish liability.
The stronger approach is to combine the two. Establish the facts. Explain their significance under the applicable law. Then allow the jury to understand the consequences for the plaintiff.
That approach respects the jury’s role and recognizes an important reality of employment litigation: discrimination claims involve legal rights, but they are ultimately experienced by people.
Closing Argument
A plaintiff should not have to choose between presenting the evidence and explaining what that evidence meant in her life. The two can (and often should) work together.
The most effective employment-discrimination cases give jurors a clear factual record, a sound legal framework, and an honest account of the consequences that followed. The plaintiff’s emotions may help convey the human impact of what happened, but they do not have to carry the case. The evidence does that work.
When a plaintiff’s story is supported by credible evidence and fits the requirements of the law, there is no need to rely on sympathy as a substitute for proof. The jury can consider both the legal significance of the conduct and its real-world impact on the person who experienced it.
Read Our Related Articles
» How Lawyers Utilize Deductive and Inductive Reasoning
» Law & Logic: Affirming the Consequent
» Law & Logic: Argument from Incredulity
» Law & Logic: Argumentum Ad Antiquitam (Appeal to Tradition)
» Law & Logic: Argumentum Ad Baculum (Appeal to Force)
» Law & Logic: Argumentum Ad Ignorantium (Appeal to Ignorance)
» Law & Logic: Argumentum Ad Populum
» Law & Logic: Argumentum Ad Vercundiam (Appeal to Authority)
» Law & Logic: Complex Question (False Dilemma)
» Law & Logic: Confirmation Bias & Sunk Cost Fallacy
» Law & Logic: Conjunction Fallacy
» Law & Logic: Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (False Cause)
» Law & Logic: Fallacy of the Inverse (Denying the Antecedent)
» Law & Logic: Halo Effect and Gambler’s Fallacy
» Law & Logic: Ignoratio Elenchi (Irrelevant Conclusion)
» Law & Logic: Petitio Principii (Circular Reasoning)
» Law & Logic: Proper Reasoning (Valid Logic)
» Law & Logic: Single Cause Fallacy (Complex Cause)
» Law & Logic: The False Compromise
» Law & Logic: The Straw Man Fallacy
LEARN MORE
If you would like to learn more, then consider contacting an experienced employment attorney to discuss your case. This article is not offered as legal advice and will not establish an attorney-client relationship with Law Office of Gregory A. Williams or the author of this article; please refer to our Disclaimer | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy for more information.
–gw