McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green
McDonnell Douglas v. Green
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 28, 1973
Decided May 14, 1973
Full case name '
Prior history On writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit
Holding
Court membership
Case opinions
Majority Powell
Dissent none

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), was an early substantive ruling 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.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a United States federal law that prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. After the Supreme Court ruling, the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (Pub. L. 102-166) amended several sections of Title VII.[1]

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is the federal government agency mandated under Title VII and other laws to process employment discrimination claims. A plaintiff in any lawsuit filed in federal court alleging unlawful employment discrimination must have received a letter from the EEOC granting the right to sue. This letter is obtained if the plaintiff filed a complaint with the EEOC within 180 days of the act of discrimination (or 300 days in certain cases when the complaint is filed with the state agency tasked to handle violations of state law). [2]

Title VII prohibits employment discrimination "because of" certain reasons. While "because of" may be understood in the conversational sense, the McDonnell Douglas case was the first landmark case to define this phrase.

Contents

Early history of the parties

McDonnell Douglas was an aerospace company in St. Louis at the time of the lawsuit, but has since been acquired by Boeing. Percy Green was a black mechanic and laboratory technician laid off by McDonnell Douglas in 1964 during a reduction in force at the company.

Green, a long-time activist in the civil rights movement, protested that his discharge was racially motivated. He and others used cars to block roads to McDonnell Douglas factories. On one occasion, someone used a chain to lock the front door of a McDonnell Douglas downtown business office, preventing employees from leaving, though it was not certain whether Green was responsible.

Soon after the locked-door incident, McDonnell Douglas advertised for vacant mechanic positions, for which Green was qualified. Green was not hired, McDonnell Douglas citing his participation in blocking traffic and chaining the building.

Green subsequently filed a complaint with the EEOC, sued in U.S. District Court, and later appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit before the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.

Supreme Court decision

The Court wrote:
1. A complainant's right to bring suit under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not confined to charges as to which the EEOC has made a reasonable-cause finding, and the District Court's error in holding to the contrary was not harmless since the issues raised with respect to 703 (a) (1) were not identical to those with respect to 704 (a) and the dismissal of the former charge may have prejudiced respondent's efforts at trial.

2. In a private, non-class-action complaint under Title VII charging racial employment discrimination, the complainant has the burden of establishing a prima facie case, which he can satisfy by showing that (i) he belongs to a racial minority; (ii) he applied and was qualified for a job the employer was trying to fill; (iii) though qualified, he was rejected; and (iv) thereafter the employer continued to seek applicants with complainant's qualifications.

3. Here, the Court of Appeals, though correctly holding that respondent proved a prima facie case, erred in holding that petitioner had not discharged its burden of proof in rebuttal by showing that its stated reason for the rehiring refusal was based on respondent's illegal activity. But on remand respondent must be afforded a fair opportunity of proving that petitioner's stated reason was just a pretext for a racially discriminatory decision, such as by showing that whites engaging in similar illegal activity were retained or hired by petitioner. Other evidence that may be relevant, depending on the circumstances, could include facts that petitioner had discriminated against respondent when he was an employee or followed a discriminatory policy toward minority employees. [3]

Impact of the case

The third point of the Court's decision is the reason for the significance of this case. The McDonnell Douglas case established the order and framework that employment discrimination cases must follow:

1. The plaintiff (employee) must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination.

2. The defendant (employer) must produce evidence of a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for its actions. If this occurs, then the presumption of discrimination dissipates.

3. The plaintiff must then present facts to show an inference of discrimination. The plaintiff may do so either by showing that the defendant’s explanation is insufficient and only a pretext for discrimination or by otherwise proving that the defendant's actions used one of the listed unlawful discriminatory parameters.

In practice, the third step is the most difficult step for plaintiffs to achieve successfully.

The significance of this case is that it allows the plaintiff (employee) to shift the questions to be proved from whether the defendant has acted “because of” an unlawful discriminatory factor to whether the defendant has lied about the reasons it took action.

Since its issuance in 1973, all the federal courts have subsequently adopted the order and allocation of proof set out in McDonnell Douglas for all claims of disparate-treatment employment discrimination that are not based on direct evidence of discriminatory intent. [4]

As for the impact of the case on the original plaintiff and defendant, the case was remanded (sent back) to the District Court to adjudicate the case in compliance with the Supreme Court's ruling.

See also


External links

References


Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

Игры ⚽ Нужно сделать НИР?

Look at other dictionaries:

  • Douglas Baird — Douglas Gordon Baird Born July 10, 1953 (1953 07 10) (age 58) Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Alma mater Yale College Stanford Law School Occupation Professor …   Wikipedia

  • Disparate treatment — is one of the theories of discrimination under Title VII of the United States Civil Rights Act; the other theory is disparate impact. Title VII prohibits employers from treating applicants or employees differently because of their membership in a …   Wikipedia

  • NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund — Logo of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (NAACP LDF, the Inc. Fund, or simply LDF) is a leading United States civil rights organization and law firm based in New York City. The… …   Wikipedia

  • List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 411 — This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 411 of the United States Reports :* San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. Rodriguez , ussc|411|1|1973 * Camp v. Pitts , ussc|411|138|1973 (per curiam) * Ohio Municipal… …   Wikipedia

  • Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White — Infobox SCOTUS case Litigants=Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White ArgueDate=April 17 ArgueYear=2006 DecideDate=June 22 DecideYear=2006 FullName=Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company, Petitioner v. Sheila White USVol=548… …   Wikipedia

  • Industrial Review — ▪ 1994 Introduction       The period since 1990 was proving a difficult time for the older industrialized economies, which had suffered from prolonged recession at home, and also for the previously centrally planned economies of Eastern Europe… …   Universalium

  • Calendar of 1997 — ▪ 1998 JANUARY JANUARY 1       Ghanaian Kofi Annan replaces Egyptian Boutros Boutros Ghali in the position of United Nations secretary general.       Among those knighted by Queen Elizabeth II in the annual New Year s Day ceremony is pop musician …   Universalium

  • Economic Affairs — ▪ 2006 Introduction In 2005 rising U.S. deficits, tight monetary policies, and higher oil prices triggered by hurricane damage in the Gulf of Mexico were moderating influences on the world economy and on U.S. stock markets, but some other… …   Universalium

  • Business and Industry Review — ▪ 1999 Introduction Overview        Annual Average Rates of Growth of Manufacturing Output, 1980 97, Table Pattern of Output, 1994 97, Table Index Numbers of Production, Employment, and Productivity in Manufacturing Industries, Table (For Annual… …   Universalium

  • List of aircraft (M) — This is a list of aircraft in alphabetical order beginning with M . pre 1914 3 20 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z Gliders HPA UAV s Engines M M Squared Aircraft M Squared Sport 1000 M Squared Sprint 1000 FP M Squared Sprint 10 …   Wikipedia

Share the article and excerpts

Direct link
Do a right-click on the link above
and select “Copy Link”