Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A.

Last updated

Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A.
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued January 15, 2002
Decided February 26, 2002
Full case nameAkos Swierkiewicz, Petitioner v. Sorema N. A.
Docket no. 00-1853
Citations534 U.S. 506 ( more )
122 S. Ct. 992; 152 L. Ed. 2d 1; 2002 U.S. LEXIS 1374
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens  · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
David Souter  · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg  · Stephen Breyer
Case opinion
MajorityThomas, joined by unanimous
Laws applied
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506 (2002), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on February 26, 2002. The Court held that for complaints in employment discrimination cases, a plaintiff is not required to allege specific facts that establish a prima facie case as required by the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework. [1] [2]

Contents

Background

Plaintiff brought suit against his former employer, alleging wrongful termination due to his national origin and age, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. [2] [3] [4] The District Court dismissed the complaint, finding that plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case because he failed to allege facts that would support an inference of discrimination. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed, holding that plaintiff did not meet his burden set forth in the McDonnell Douglas framework. Plaintiff then appealed to the Supreme Court. [2] [3] [4] An amicus brief was filed by the National Employment Lawyers Association, AARP, American Civil Liberties Union, National Partnership for Women & Families, National Women’s Law Center, and NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund. [5]

Decision

In a unanimous decision delivered by Justice Thomas, the Court reversed, holding that “an employment discrimination complaint need not include such facts and instead must contain only ‘a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.’ Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 8(a)(2).” [6] [2] The Court also stated that the required prima facie case in the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework is a “flexible evidentiary standard” instead of a “rigid pleading requirement.” [7] [2] [3] [8]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Equal Pay Act of 1963</span> 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:

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.

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States involving antitrust law and civil procedure. Authored by Justice David Souter, it established that parallel conduct, absent evidence of agreement, is insufficient to sustain an antitrust action under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. It also heightened the pleading requirement for federal civil cases by requiring for plaintiffs to include enough facts in their complaint to make it plausible, not merely possible or conceivable, that they will be able to prove facts to support their claims. The latter change in the law has been met with a great deal of controversy in legal circles, as evidenced by the dissenting opinion from Justice John Paul Stevens.

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

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.

In United States employment discrimination law, 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", 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.

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 a discrimination case brought under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 ("ADEA"). The appellant, Guy DeMarco, was released from employment before his eligibility for tenure at the age of forty-nine. Holy Cross High School argued that it was not subject to ADEA laws and that if it were, this case against it violated the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The school also argued that DeMarco had failed to utilize the administrative remedies available.

Hazelwood School District 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.

Babb v. Wilkie, 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 result of the employment decision.

Groff v. DeJoy, 600 U.S. 447 (2023), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding religious liberty and employment accommodations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Prior, Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison (1977) had established that an employer could deny an employee religious exemptions from work if they could show "undue hardship" in making the accommodation, a vague phrase at the center of Groff. The case was decided unanimously for Groff by the Court. While generally upholding Trans World, the court clarified that increased costs that are more than "de minimis" are not sufficient to demonstrate "undue hardship", and that the onus is on the employer to demonstrate that granting the exemption would incur "substantial increased costs" compared to the normal costs of business. This decision has been widely praised by religious organizations.

Bazemore v. Friday, 478 U.S. 385 (1986), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a regression analysis does not have to account for every possible factor that could influence salary in order to be considered as evidence of discrimination.

Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (1999), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 22, 1999. The Court decided that mitigating measures should be taken into account when determining whether one's impairment constitutes a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). The holding of this case was later overturned by the passage of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008.

Federal Express Corp. v. Holowecki, 552 U.S. 389 (2008), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on February 27, 2008. The ruling provided guidance on what would constitute an adequate filing under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA).

Muldrow v. City of St. Louis was a United States Supreme Court decision which held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protected against discriminatory job transfers, even where the transfer did not result in a significant disadvantage.

References

  1. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506 (2002)
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 "Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506 (2002)". Justia Law. Retrieved September 10, 2023.
  3. 1 2 3 "Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A." Oyez,www.oyez.org/cases/2001/00-1853. Accessed 9 Sep. 2023.
  4. 1 2 "SWIERKIEWICZ v. SOREMA N. A., 534 U.S. 506 (2002)". FindLaw. Retrieved September 11, 2023.
  5. "ACLU Amicus Brief in Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A." American Civil Liberties Union. Retrieved March 7, 2024.
  6. Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 508.
  7. Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512.
  8. "Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A. 00-1853". American Civil Liberties Union. Retrieved September 11, 2023.