In logic, what does the term “Ipse Dixit Fallacy” or “It Simply Is” 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
Ipse Dixit: When “Because I Say So” Is Not Enough in Employment-Discrimination Cases
What Is Ipse Dixit?
In Latin, ipse dixit means “he himself said it.” In logic and legal reasoning, the term describes an assertion presented as true without adequate supporting reasons or evidence. In everyday language, it amounts to saying, “It’s true because I say it is.”
The problem is not that a statement is necessarily false. It is that the person making the statement expects others to accept it without a sufficient explanation or evidentiary foundation.
In a courtroom, that distinction matters. A confident assertion can sound persuasive, but confidence alone does not establish credibility or prove a disputed fact.
video Example: Ipse Dixit Fallacy or “It Simply Is”
How Ipse Dixit Appears in Employment-Discrimination Cases
Consider a Washington employee who alleges racial discrimination after being terminated. The employer responds that the termination was based on poor performance. When asked to identify the performance deficiencies, the employer offers only a general statement that the employee “wasn’t meeting expectations,” without identifying meaningful examples or explaining how those expectations were applied.
That explanation may be legitimate, but simply repeating it does not make it so. The evidence must be examined to determine whether the stated reason is supported by the record.
The same issue can arise when an employer insists that its policies are applied consistently, yet cannot explain why employees accused of comparable misconduct received different treatment. The assertion of consistency is not a substitute for evidence of consistency.
Plaintiff’s attorneys, however, must avoid the same logical error. An attorney cannot establish discrimination merely by asserting that an employer’s explanation is pretextual*. The argument becomes persuasive when supported by evidence such as shifting explanations, inconsistent policy enforcement, suspicious timing, relevant comparator evidence, or other circumstances that reasonably support an inference of discrimination.
The Connection to Washington Law
Washington’s Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), chapter 49.60* RCW, prohibits specified discriminatory employment practices. In disparate-treatment cases, the central question is not simply whether an employer offers an explanation for its decision. It is whether the evidence supports a finding that unlawful discrimination was a substantial factor in the challenged action.
In Scrivener v. Clark College*, 181 Wn.2d 439 (2014), the Washington Supreme Court* explained the plaintiff’s burden under the WLAD and clarified that a plaintiff need not prove discrimination was the only motivating factor. The decision illustrates why examining the evidence behind an employer’s explanation matters.
The term ipse dixit is not an independent WLAD cause of action, nor does using it automatically invalidate an employer’s stated reason. Rather, it provides a useful label for a weakness in reasoning: an assertion is being treated as proof when the supporting evidence has not been established.
Putting Ipse Dixit to Work at Trial
For trial attorneys, recognizing ipse dixit can sharpen both discovery and courtroom advocacy.
Plaintiff’s counsel can ask what evidence supports the employer’s stated reason, whether that reason was documented at the time, and whether the explanation is consistent with the treatment of other employees. Defense counsel can test whether the plaintiff’s allegations rest on actual evidence or assumptions about an employer’s motives.
Both sides should distinguish between what a witness claims, what the witness personally knows, and what the evidence independently supports. Focused questioning can expose the difference between a reasoned explanation and an unsupported conclusion.
Ultimately, the most effective argument is not merely that the opposing party has asserted something questionable. It is that the assertion fails when measured against the evidence.
Closing Argument
In employment-discrimination litigation, ipse dixit is a reminder that saying something does not make it true. An employer’s explanation does not become persuasive simply because it is repeated, and an allegation of discrimination does not become proof merely because it is sincerely held.
For Washington employment-discrimination trial attorneys, the task is to move beyond assertions and examine the facts that support—or undermine—them. Credible advocacy requires connecting the evidence to the conclusion and giving the jury a reason to accept the argument.
In the courtroom, “because I say so” is not the end of the analysis. It is the beginning of the inquiry.
Read Our Related Articles
» How Lawyers Utilize Deductive and Inductive Reasoning
» Law & Logic: Affirming the Consequent
» Law & Logic: Appeal to Emotion
» 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 Nauseam
» 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: Hasty Generalization
» 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