In logic, what does the term Single Cause Fallacy (Complex Cause) 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
The Single Cause Fallacy in Washington Workplace Discrimination Cases
Workplace discrimination cases often seem to present a simple question: Why did the employer take the challenged action?
But workplace decisions rarely have just one cause. This is where the Single Cause Fallacy, sometimes called the Complex Cause Fallacy, can be a useful way to think about employment discrimination claims.
What Is the Single Cause Fallacy?
The Single Cause Fallacy occurs when we assume that an event must have one exclusive cause when, in reality, several factors may have contributed to the outcome.
For example, an employer may say an employee was terminated because of poor performance. The employee, however, may have evidence of discriminatory comments, different treatment of comparable employees, or unusual scrutiny based on a protected characteristic.
The existence of performance problems does not necessarily mean discrimination played no role.
video Example: Single Cause Fallacy (Complex Cause)
How Does This Apply in Washington?
Washington’s Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) prohibits discrimination based on protected characteristics. In employment discrimination cases involving an adverse action, Washington law asks whether the protected characteristic was a substantial factor in the employer’s decision.
That standard is important because a substantial factor does not necessarily have to be the only factor.
Thus, the question is not always whether the employer had a legitimate reason for its decision or whether discrimination was involved. Both can potentially be true. The question is whether discrimination was a substantial factor in bringing about the challenged action.
Looking Beyond an “Either-Or” Explanation
Consider an employee who genuinely has performance problems but is also subjected to discriminatory comments and held to standards that are not applied to comparable employees.
It may be overly simplistic to say, “The employee had performance problems, so discrimination could not have been a factor.”
Trial lawyers should instead examine the entire decision-making process:
• What did the decision-maker know, and when?
• Were workplace rules applied consistently?
• Were similarly situated employees treated differently?
• Did the employer’s explanation change?
• Is there evidence of discriminatory attitudes or remarks?
The answers may help show how multiple factors came together to produce the employment decision.
What This Means for Employment Lawyers
For plaintiff‘s counsel, recognizing the Single Cause Fallacy can help address an employer’s argument that a legitimate reason automatically defeats a discrimination claim.
For defense counsel, the same principle is useful in the other direction. Evidence that an employee has a protected characteristic—or that a decision-maker made an inappropriate remark—does not automatically establish that discrimination caused the adverse action.
In either case, the focus should be on causation and the evidence surrounding the actual decision.
Conclusion
The Single Cause Fallacy is ultimately a warning against oversimplifying complicated decisions.
In a Washington workplace discrimination case, an employee’s protected characteristic does not necessarily have to be the only reason for an adverse employment action. The important question is whether discrimination was a substantial factor in the decision.
Recognizing that possibility of multiple causes can help both lawyers and jurors evaluate the evidence more accurately—and avoid reducing a complicated employment decision to a misleading “either-or” choice.
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: 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
