{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.016299137104506232, 'fraction_numerical': 0.003835091083413231, 'mean_word_length': 5.177514792899408, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 3, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
An Oasis within a Desert Palace : Proving Sex Discrimination in the New Millennium

In the case of Desert Palace v. Costa (2003), the Supreme Court's liberalization of evidentiary standards in proving discrimination helps women building cases of discrimination along the legal frame of disparate treatment theory. Desert Palace v. Costa clarifies and effectively expands the type of evidence that can be used to prove sex discrimination in cases where legitimate and illegitimate reasons are used to curtail employment opportunities. Now direct and circumstantial evidence can be used to build a case of sex discrimination in these mixed-motives cases. Given the nuances of faculty evaluation processes and the subjectivities therein, this legal development is particularly beneficial to women in academia. Nevertheless, while Desert Palace v. Costa is a progressive step forward, the law of sex discrimination remains limited in its ability to provide remedy in cases where similar treatment results in outcomes that vary on the basis of sex.