McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting

Last updated

McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting or the McDonnell-Douglas burden-shifting framework refers to the procedure for adjudicating a motion for summary judgement under a Title VII disparate treatment claim, in particular a "private, non-class action challenging employment discrimination", [1] that lacks direct evidence of discrimination. It was introduced by the United States Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas v. Green and Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine and has been elaborated on in subsequent cases.

Contents

The McDonnell-Douglas framework is typically used when a case lacks direct evidence of discrimination. In other cases, courts may decide not to use the McDonnell-Douglas framework, and instead evaluate disparate treatment claims under the Price Waterhouse "mixed motive" framework.

Framework

The framework as currently applied by courts is as follows:

  1. A plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case by a preponderance of the evidence, i.e. allege facts that are adequate to support a legal claim. (see the below section for more)
  2. Then the burden of production shifts to the employer, to rebut this prima facie case by "articulat[ing] some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the employee’s rejection." [2]
  3. Then the plaintiff may prevail only if the plaintiff can show that the employer's response is merely a pretext for behavior actually motivated by discrimination. [3]

Even though the employer bears the burden of production in the second step, the plaintiff bears the burden of persuasion at all times. [4]

Evolution of the framework

In St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks , the court revisited the third step in the framework. Initially explaining that affected employee should merely "be afforded a fair opportunity to show that petitioner's stated reason for respondent's rejection was in fact, pretext[,]" [5] the court revised its initial guidance and added that the employee must also show that the employer's actions were in fact motivated by discrimination. [6]

Then, in Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc. , the Court emphasized that "a plaintiff’s prima facie case of age discrimination, combined with sufficient evidence to find that the employer’s asserted justification for its action was false, may permit the trier of fact to conclude that the employer unlawfully discriminated," and that the plaintiff need not always introduce additional and independent evidence of discrimination. [7]

Requirements for a prima facie case

In his majority opinion in McDonnell Douglas , Justice Powell also outlined the requirements for the first burden placed on plaintiffs in Title VII trials, i.e., the initial prima facie showing of discrimination. The plaintiff in such a case must show

  1. that the employee belongs to a racial minority;
  2. that the employee applied and was qualified for a job for which the employer was seeking applicants;
  3. that, despite the employee's qualifications, the employee was rejected; and
  4. that, after the employee's rejection, the position remained open and the employer continued to seek applicants from persons of complainant's qualifications. [2]

Related Research Articles

Prima facie is a Latin expression meaning at first sight or based on first impression. The literal translation would be 'at first face' or 'at first appearance', from the feminine forms of primus ('first') and facies ('face'), both in the ablative case. In modern, colloquial and conversational English, a common translation would be "on the face of it".

Equal Pay Act of 1963 United States labor law of the New Frontier program

The Equal Pay Act of 1963 is a United States labor law amending the Fair Labor Standards Act, aimed at abolishing wage disparity based on sex. It was signed into law on June 10, 1963, by John F. Kennedy as part of his New Frontier Program. In passing the bill, Congress stated that sex discrimination:

Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (2001), was a United States Supreme Court case about Congress's enforcement powers under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court decided that Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act was unconstitutional, insofar as it allowed states to be sued by private citizens for money damages.

Civil Rights Act of 1991

The Civil Rights Act of 1991 is a United States labor law, passed in response to United States Supreme Court decisions that limited the rights of employees who had sued their employers for discrimination. The Act represented the first effort since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to modify some of the basic procedural and substantive rights provided by federal law in employment discrimination cases. It provided the right to trial by jury on discrimination claims and introduced the possibility of emotional distress damages and limited the amount that a jury could award. It added provisions to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protections expanding the rights of women to sue and collect compensatory and punitive damages for sexual discrimination or harassment.

Disparate impact in United States labor law refers to practices in employment, housing, and other areas that adversely affect one group of people of a protected characteristic more than another, even though rules applied by employers or landlords are formally neutral. Although the protected classes vary by statute, most federal civil rights laws protect based on race, color, religion, national origin, and sex as protected traits, and some laws include disability status and other traits as well.

Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio, 490 U.S. 642 (1989), was a court case concerning employment discrimination, argued before the United States Supreme Court on January 18, 1989, and decided on June 5, 1989.

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), is a US employment law case by the United States Supreme Court regarding the burdens and nature of proof in proving a Title VII case and the order in which plaintiffs and defendants present proof. It was the seminal case in the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework.

Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557 (2009), is a United States labor law case of the United States Supreme Court on unlawful discrimination through disparate impact under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust, 487 U.S. 977 (1988), is a United States Supreme Court case on US labor law, concerning proof of disparate treatment under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Bushey v. New York State Civil Serv. Comm'n, 733 F.2d 220, 224 is a US labor law case from the Second Circuit applying the test for affirmative action from United Steelworkers v. Weber.

St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993), was a US labor law case before the United States Supreme Court on the burden of proof and the relevance of intent for race discrimination.

Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (1981), is a United States labor law case of the United States Supreme Court.

Disparate treatment is one kind of unlawful discrimination in US labor law. In the United States, it means unequal behavior toward someone because of a protected characteristic under Title VII of the United States Civil Rights Act. This contrasts with disparate impact, where an employer applies a neutral rule that treats everyone equally in form, but has a disadvantageous effect on some people of a protected characteristic compared to others.

"Mixed motive" discrimination is a category of discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

<i>DeMarco v. Holy Cross High School</i> American legal case

DeMarco v. Holy Cross High School 4 F.3d 166 was an employment discrimination case brought under the ADEA. The appellant, Guy DeMarco, was released from employment prior to his eligibility for tenure at the age of forty-nine. Holy Cross High School argued that it was not subject to ADEA laws, and if it were that this case against it was in violation of the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The defendant also argued that the plaintiff failed to utilize the administrative remedies available.

Hazelwood School Dist. v. United States, 433 U.S. 299 (1977), was a court case argued before the United States Supreme Court on April 27, 1977. It concerned employment discrimination and was decided on June 27, 1977.

Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000), was a case before the United States Supreme Court concerning age discrimination in employment.

Bundy v. Jackson, 641 F.2d 934, was a D.C. Circuit opinion, written by Judge Skelly Wright, that held that workplace sexual harassment could constitute employment discrimination under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Young v. United Parcel Service, 575 U.S. ___ (2015), is a United States Supreme Court case that the Court evaluated the requirements for bringing a disparate treatment claim under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that to bring such a claim, a pregnant employee must show that their employer refused to provide accommodations and that the employer later provided accommodations to other employees with similar restrictions. The Court then remanded the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to determine whether the employer engaged in discrimination under this new test.

Babb v. Wilkie, No. 18-882,, 589 U.S. ___ (2020), is a case of the United States Supreme Court in which the justices considered the scope of protections for federal employees in the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. Specifically, the Court ruled that plaintiffs only need to prove that age was a motivating factor in the decision in order to sue. However, establishing but for causation is still necessary in determining the appropriate remedy. If a plaintiff can establish that the age was the determining factor in the employment outcome, they may be entitled to compensatory damages or other relief relating to the end result of the employment decision.

References

  1. ↑ McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green , 411 U.S. 792, 800 (1973).
  2. 1 2 McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802.
  3. ↑ St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks , 509 U.S. 502 (1993).
  4. ↑ Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine , 450 U.S. 248, 255–56 (1981).
  5. ↑ McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 804.
  6. ↑ Donahue, Alison M. (1996). "Employment Law - Ramifications of St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks: The Third Circuit's Revival of the "Pretext-Only" Standard at Summary Judgment". Villanova Law Review. 41 (4): 1298, n.12. Retrieved 19 December 2019.
  7. ↑ Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc. , 530 U.S. 133, 148–49 (2000).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.