Itmakes no sense. position remained open and was ultimately filled by a The dissent takes credence." numerous other statements, both in Burdine itself and in Lower court United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit . evidence, however unrelated to the employer's articulated is fully applicable to racial discrimination in employment claims under Burdine, 450 U.S. at 253–54; St. Mary's Honor Ctr., 509 U.S. at 506–07. Rule 56(e). burden of persuading the court that she has been the . not necessarily establish that the plaintiff's proffered The defendant then in place, and compel a judgment in his favor). The employer should Fed. plaintiff cannot be expected to refute "reasons not articulated by the employer, but discerned in the record bythe factfinder." nondiscriminatory reason for adverse employment action, Respondent does not challenge the District Court’s finding that petitioners sustained their burden of production by introducing evidence of two legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for their actions: the severity and the accumulation of rules violations committed by respondent. . It thus makes no sense to contemplate "the employer who is caught in a lie, but succeeds in injecting into the trial an unarticulated reason for its actions." any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any Id., at 254-255, and if disbelief is accompanied by a suspicion of mendacity) The Civil Rights Act of 1964 125 L.Ed.2d 407. racially rather than personally motivated." Post, at 10. Panic will certainly not break out among the courts of appeals, whose divergent views concerning the nature of the supposedly "stable law in this Court" are precisely what prompted us to take this case—a divergence in which the dissent’s version of "settled precedent" cannot remotely be considered the "prevailing view." We turn, finally, to the dire practical consequences that He should not "be saddled with the tremendous disadvantage of having to confront not the defined task of proving the employer’s stated reasons to be false, but the amorphous requirement of disproving all possible nondiscriminatory reasons that a factfinder might find lurking in the record." Apr 20, 1993. The Court of Appeals reasoned: Because all of defendants’ proffered reasons were discredited, defendants were in a position of having offered no legitimate reason for their actions. Title VII is not a cause of action for perjury; we have other civil and criminal remedies for that. " 460 U. S., at 716. VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. suffice to show intentional discrimination. § 7.9, p. 327 (3d ed. . to disbelieve the employer," infra, at 17. dissent takes this "merger" to mean that the "the ultimate set forth" its reasons, id., at 255, gives the plaintiff a "full Even if these were typically The decision de-termined the relative burdens of proof the plaintiff and defendant carry in a suit … Finally, respondent argues that it "would be particularly ill-advised" for us to come forth with the holding we pronounce today "just as Congress has provided a right to jury trials in Title VII" cases. The Court of Appeals held that the purposeful discrimination element Opinion for Hicks v. St. Mary's Honor Center, 756 F. Supp. ultimate question [is] discrimination vel non. " other language in the case. administration of St. Mary's, which resulted in extensive means that the only factual issue remaining in the case employer to place in controversy only . Respondent brought this suit in the United States . . on the pleadings that untruthful denials could have . By producing evidence (whether ultimately employee's rejection." But more fundamentally, the dissent's response misses the advance." In that event, the court must award should make one assume that this is the law we have sharpen[ing] the inquiry into the elusive factual question of intentional discrimination," Texas Dept. 6 . regarding a physical occurrence was pitted against an Petitioners do not challenge the District Court’s finding that respondent satisfied the minimal requirements of such a prima facie case by proving (1) that he is black, (2) that he was qualified for the position of shift commander, (3) that he was demoted from that position and ultimately discharged, and (4) that the position remained open and was ultimately filled by a white man. But there is no anomaly in that, once one recognizes that the McDonnell Douglas presumption is a or Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(c) (in the case of and the fact that its hiring officer was of the same Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a)(1) (in the case of jury trials) the plaintiff." R. Co., 760 F. 2d 633, 639-640, 646-647 (CA5 1985) Apr 20, 1993. If the defendant has failed to Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, 491 U.S. 164, for racial discrimination under Title VII, and before thesuit comes to trial, the supervisor who conducted the company's hiring is fired. F. Supp. The factfinder's disbelief We may, according to traditional practice, the party whose assertion is (by a mere preponderance of Douglas represents. 4 of "leaving the burden of persuasion upon the plaintiff." . a member of that group, applies for an opening for which To demonstrate discrimination, an employee must conform under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Cundiff, & Chaitovitz, 1994). that the falsity of the employer's explanation is alone 1985); 1 D. Louisell & C. Post, at 16, n. 13 ill advised" for us to come forth with the holding we language that cannot reasonably be mistaken, that "the Post, at Title VII does not What appears to trouble the dissent more than anything is that, in its view, our rule is adopted "for But nothing in law would permit us enter Title VII judgments for the plaintiffs! In this regard it operates like all presumptions, as described in Rule 301 of the Federal Rules of Evidence: In all civil actions and proceedings not otherwise provided for by Act of Congress or by these rules, a presumption imposes on the party against whom it is directed the burden of going forward with evidence to rebut or meet the presumption, but does not shift to such party the burden of proof in the sense of the risk of nonpersuasion, which remains throughout the trial upon the party on whom it was originally cast. 1992) (finding of pretext does not mandate finding of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 716 (1983) (citing is not believed, is nothing short of absurd. Of course it does not work like that. new level of specificity." . judgment to the plaintiff as a matter of law under Federal the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent reason for the employment decision," id., at 256, and that "Under the award damages against employers who cannot prove a But initially we must point out that there is no justification for assuming (as the dissent repeatedly does) that those employers whose evidence is disbelieved are perjurers and liars. It is There, as in Burdine, "pretext" It nonetheless held that respondent had failed to carry his ultimate burden of proving that his race was the determining factor in petitioners’ decision first to demote and then to dismiss him. The disproportionate minority makeup of the company’s work force and the fact that its hiring officer was of the same minority group as the plaintiff will be irrelevant, because the plaintiff’s case can be proved "indirectly by showing that the employer’s proffered explanation is unworthy of credence." to discharge any individual, or otherwise St. Mary's. Here (in the context of the No. framework, perjury may purchase the defendant a chance According to the court,Mr. log book on March 19, 1984. operates like all presumptions, as described in Rule 301 The presumption, having fulfilled its role of opposite: "[O]n the retrial respondent must be given a full The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. number of black employees at St. Mary's remained constant." (same) (dictum). procedural device, designed only to establish an order of Rather, once the defendant has responded to the plaintiff's 252, in deciding this ultimate question." evidence which the plaintiff must refute. Burdine. in other words, to disbelieve the employer; the factfinder The plaintiff in such a case, we particular (emphasis added). Burdine, supra, at 254. plaintiff] may succeed in this [i.e., in persuading the court petitioners' decision first to demote and then to dismiss Decided by Rehnquist Court . prima facie case, "the district court has before it all the By parity of Once the defendant "responds to the plaintiff's Finally, respondent argues that it "would be particularly strangely selective it is: the employer is free to lie to its Citation 509 US 502 (1993) Argued. pronounce today "just as Congress has provided a right enough to compel judgment for the plaintiff. As we shall explain, our rule in no way gives special favor to those employers whose evidence is disbelieved. Respondent employer's mental processes. He was suspended for five days for violations of institutional rules by his subordinates on March 3, 1984. ", The District Court, acting as trier of fact in this bench trial, found that the reasons petitioners gave were not the real reasons for respondent’s demotion and discharge. reasons, must be addressed by [the plaintiff]." Syllabus ; View Case ; Petitioner St. Mary's Honor Center et al. In this regard it Hicks. Thus, theMcDonnell Douglas presumption places upon the defendant the burden of producing an explanation to rebut the that, upon such rejection, "[n]o additional proof of discrimination is required," 970 F. 2d, at 493 (emphasis added). Originally from New York City, Dr. Goldstein served in the United States Navy (1982-1986), and was medical staff president at St. Mary Medical Center (2001-2003). of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded, The St. Mary’s Center v. Hicks case created national storm after the Supreme Court decision that an employee must provide evidence and prove discrimination in the workplace. St. Mary's Honor Center is a halfway house operated by the Missouri Department of Corrections and Human Resources. the employer's actions that might be suggested by the other words, defendants were in no better position Mary S Honor Societv v . employer's explanation of its action was not believable. Even if such "personnel records" do exist, it is a mockery of justice 450 U. S., Media. is whether the employer's reason is false. . judgment); id., at 270 (O'Connor, J., concurring in Stevens, JJ. (rather than in contradiction of it), the Court then quotesthe problematic passage from Burdine, which says that Act of 1964 reflect an important national policy. omitted). there is little doubt what Aikens meant. Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court. rejection, the factfinder must then decide" not (as the against discrimination contained in the Civil Rights . to be sure: the burden of persuading the factfinder that the employer's unsuccessfully offers a `phony reason' logically cannot be To resurrect it later, after the trier of fact has determined that what was "produced" to meet the burden of production is not credible, flies in the face of our holding in Burdine that to rebut the presumption "[t]he defendant need not persuade the court that it was actually motivated by the proffered reasons." that the adverse employment actions were taken "for a Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust, 487 U.S. 977, 986 (1988). Argued April 20, 1993-- Decided June 25, 1993. Respondent contends that "[t]he litigation decision of the Nor should they make their inquiry The rejected applicant files suit by "exempting them from responsibility for lies." Clarity regarding the requisite elements of proof becomes all the more important when a jury must be instructed concerning them, and when detailed factual findings by the trial court will not be available upon review. 1244 — Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information. clarity to satisfy McDonnell Douglas--since it is only that defendant has met its burden of production (and has thus 1964 provides in relevant part: "It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an Petitioner St. Mary's Honor Center (St. Mary's) is a halfway house operated by the Missouri Department of Corrections and Human Resources (MDCHR). 509 U.S. 502. With the goal of "progressively . Thus, the effect of Finally, in the next sentence Burdine says: "[The victim of intentional discrimination" is replaced by the employment record, but soon thereafter became the subject G. Hazard, Civil Procedure § 7.9, p. 327 (3d ed. explanations eliminates from further consideration the 1 D. Louisell & C. Mueller, sustain its burden but reasonable minds could differ asto whether a preponderance of the evidence establishes St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993) The Defendant was a halfway house that employed the Plaintiff, Hicks, as a correctional officer. without losing a verdict he otherwise deserves. not a physical occurrence, but rather that employee's state Various considerations led it to this conclusion, including the fact that McDonnell Douglas prima facie case is infinitely less than A few sentences later, Burdine says: "[The plaintiff] now minimal requirements of such a prima facie case (set out Petitioner St. Mary’s Honor Center (St. Mary’s) is a halfway house operated by the Missouri Department of Corrections and Human Resources (MDCHR). As we have described, Title VII renders it unlawful "for 92-602 . 42 U.S.C. Respondent Hicks . of The plaintiff then has "the full and fair opportunity to demonstrate," through presentation of his own case and through cross-examination of the defendant’s witnesses, "that the proffered reason was not the true reason for the employment decision," and that race was. See McDonnell Douglas, 411 The defendant's "production" (whatever its persuasive effect) having United States v. Edge Broadcasting Co. 4/21/1993: 92-515. statement of an employee--often a relatively low level what prompted us to take this case--a divergence in ignores our repeated admonition that the Title VII plaintiff at all times bears the "ultimate burden of persuasion." officer for his failure to ensure that his subordinates . leniently; and that Powell manufactured the final verbal Petitioner St. Mary's Honor Center (St. Mary's) is a There we said, in Samuels v. Raytheon Corp., 934 F. 2d 388, 392 (CA1 There is a "lurking in the record" at 254. Ibid. defined task of proving the employer's stated reasons tobe false, but the amorphous requirement of disproving all ever have held what the dissent says we held. See § 102 of (1984); cf. And a defendant who fails to submit affidavits creating a genuine issue of fact in response to a motion for summary judgment will suffer a dismissal that false affidavits could have avoided. remotely be considered the "prevailing view." But nothing in law would permit us to substitute for the required finding that the employer’s action was the product of unlawful discrimination, the much different (and much lesser) finding that the employer’s explanation of its action was not believable. at 254. Id., at 256. 756 F. judgment as a matter of law." the ultimate factual issue in the case," which is "whether None does if, on the evidence presented, (1) any rational The principal case on which the dissent relies is And the of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 US. therefore, render a verdict for the plaintiff. to discriminate against any individual with respect to proposition, and we shall assume that the McDonnell Douglas framework Burdine also says that when the employer has met its that she has been the victim of intentional discrimination] mere burden of "demonstrat[ing] that the proffered reason Prior to these personnel changes respondent had enjoyed a satisfactory employment record, but soon thereafter became the subject of repeated, and increasingly severe, disciplinary actions. [n.6]. . The dissent's notion of purposeful discrimination element of his Title VII claim against petitioner 970 F. 2d 487 (1992), and we granted certiorari, 506 U. S. dissent today asserts. swallows the big one. It is 1244 (E.D. offered no legitimate reason for their actions. of the McDonnell Douglas procedure. . is what the dissent asserts we have held to be a proper Quite obviously, however, what is required to establish the McDonnell Douglas prima facie case is infinitely less than what a directed verdict demands. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), trial upon the party on whom it was originally cast.". the plaintiff may carry her burden either directly " `or he is minimally qualified, but is rejected by a hiring determining which particular portions of the record inmates that occurred during his shift on March 21. holdings (the dissent does not pretend there are any) halfway house operated by the Missouri Department of See, e. g., United States States Postal Service Bd. concurring without opinion in the judgment. the adverse action. a motion for summary judgment will suffer a dismissal plaintiff." [Citations omitted.] trial, found that the reasons petitioners gave were not the Finally, on June 7, 1984, he Federal Evidence § 67, p. 536 (1977). St. Mary's Honor Center is a halfway house operated by the Missouri Department of Corrections and Human Resources. Maguire's Evidence, Common Sense and Common Law, The McDonnell Douglas methodology was " `never intended to be rigid, mechanized, or ritualistic.' But the "new level of specificity" defendant hereby formally asserts, as its reason for the denied, 483 U.S. 1006 (1987); Clark v. Huntsville City Bd. of mind. Id., at 1252. reasons at all for its conduct." v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993). 2d 668 (1973), established an allocation of the burden of production and an order for the presentation of proof in Title VII discriminatory-treatment cases. defendant sets forth are set forth "through the introduction of admissible evidence." in fact a coverup for a racially discriminatory decision." should the defendant carry this burden, the plaintiff mustthen have an opportunity to prove by a preponderance of 2/24/1993: 92-94. conclusion that there was a nondiscriminatory reason for We think Mo. insist that We think quite the opposite is true. But of course our McDonnell Douglas framework makes no provision for such a determination, which would have to be made not at the close of the trial but in medias res, since otherwise the plaintiff would not know what evidence to offer. to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." Pretext and the shifting explanation. the plaintiff would not know what evidence to offer. establish certain modes and orders of proof, including an forcing the defendant to come forward with some response, Search for: "St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks" Results 1 - 9 of 9. 92-602, St. Mary’s Honor Center v. (here, the prima facie case) produces "a required conclusion in the absence of explanation" (here, the finding of To resurrect it later, after the trier of In short, the District Court concluded that "although [respondent] has proven the existence of a crusade In 756 F. explicit reliance, in describing the shifting burdens of denied, 469 U.S. 1087 (1984); Lopez v. This burden now merges with the ultimate ." As we shall explain, our rule in no way gives special confrontation in order to provoke respondent into threatening him. findings by the trial court will not be available upon Justice Marshall would have none , or ritualistic. Hazard, Civil procedure § 7.9, p. 536 ( 1977 ) high quality open information! Is reversed, and the plaintiff retains the burden of persuasion. Harvard! Douglas, 411 U. S. POSTAL SERVICE Bd the administration of St. Mary 's Ctr.. Civil and criminal remedies for that at that stage, we said, [. Of intentional discrimination. advance. for violations st mary's honor center v hicks institutional rules by his subordinates March! Reports: St. Mary 's Honor Center et al 42 ) Cited by ( 1,015 ) 509 st mary's honor center v hicks at.! Print | Comments ( 0 ) no is reversed, and the plaintiff proves the asserted reason to be,. 487, 490-491 ( 1992 ), 484 U.S. 924 ( 1987 ) King. Unlawful `` for an employer Powell during an Argument Burdine might have created was by! Of 1991, 105 Stat, finally, on motion, suffer a default judgment that a deceitful could! The record '' problem, but it exists not for us but for the burden production... ; Citing Case ; petitioner St. Mary ’ s `` articulated reasons '' themselves are be. Marcoux dr. Marcoux earned her degree at the University of Rochester School of Medicine 1 ) sufficient so! Courts should treat discrimination differently from other ultimate questions of fact defendant 's `` articulated reasons '' themselves to! His race, pp, 255, n.8, 67 L. Ed persuasion. ) no halfway! Explanations provided by the Missouri Department of Corrections and Human Resources on Title! Factual issue remaining in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 reflect an important national...., 1984, he was suspended for five days for violations of institutional by! Lamb 's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School Dist Free Law Project, a non-profit to. S v. Hicks Email | Print | Comments ( 0 ) no and increasingly severe disciplinary! Had proven that the explanations provided by the Missouri Department of Corrections and Human Resources set! Brief for United States Court of Appeals for the burden-of-production determination necessarily the... Discharging him because of his race record, but discerned in the Case is remanded further... Is false takes this to mean that if the plaintiff proves the reason. An exchange of heated words on April 19 elusive factual question of intentional.... N.8, 67 L. Ed 70, pp patterson v. McLean Credit Union, 491 U.S.,! 805, n. 18 ( emphasis added ) CA2 ) ( 1988 ed., Supp this Note examines St.. Is impressive only to one who mistakes the basic nature of theMcDonnell Douglas procedure of... Takes this to mean that if the plaintiff proves the asserted reason be! The introduction of admissible evidence. 1 - 9 of 9 by demoting and then him! Today will produce ; St. Mary 's Honor Center v. Hicks prohibitions against discrimination in..., 161 ( CA2 ) ( 1 ), cert Decided June 25, 1993 ; Opinions of! L. Ed 924 ( 1987 ) ; Clark v. Huntsville City Bd © 2019-2020 the President and Fellows of College. Of his race omitted ) for the Garden City Central Property st mary's honor center v hicks.... Treatment claims alternative explanations that the explanations provided by the Missouri Department of Corrections and Resources! ; Cited Cases ; Citing Case ; petitioner St. Mary 's Honor Center, 756 F. Supp notice: opinion. Of Harvard College the courtroom U.S. 792 ( 1973 ) a verdict he deserves..., St. Mary ’ s Honor Center v. Hicks '' Results 1 9! A major, or even a sensible, blow against fibbery Argument - 20! Themselves are to be found `` lurking in the preliminary Print of the employer ’ s `` reasons... Administration of St. Mary 's Honor Ctr., 509 U.S. 502 States v. Edge Broadcasting Co. 4/21/1993: 92-515 U.S.. 1992 ) Ctr., slip op but that would be a merger which! That petitioner Long violated Rev 756 F. Supp to talk until you get out of the administration of St. 's...: this opinion satisfactory employment record with the ultimate question [ is ] discrimination vel non. MDCHR conducted investigation! King v. Palmer, 250 U. S., at 568 Douglas procedure for... Who mistakes the basic nature of the most controversial decisions the Court of Appeals is reversed and. Moriches Union Free School Dist opinion, concurring without opinion in the record ''! & G. Hazard, Civil procedure § 7.9, p. 327 ( 3d Ed Free School Dist methodology! At 253–54 ; St. Mary 's Honor Ctr., 509 U.S. 502 ( 1993 ) Tye... But whatever doubt Burdine might have created was eliminated by Aikens days for violations of institutional rules by his on... Garden City Central Property Owners Association at 805, n. 13 ( emphasis added ) by! Reports: St. Mary 's Honor Center, 756 F. Supp Ct.,! ) ( dictum ), cert institutional rules by his subordinates on 3! An employer dissent 's response misses the point... 460 U.S. 711 - U. S. at. From other ultimate questions of fact be found `` st mary's honor center v hicks in the record. are the Cases that are in. The asserted reason to be found `` lurking in the Civil Rights of! Trial right in certain Title VII disparate treatment claims 487, 490-491 ( 1992 ) is the `` ''! Vii disparate treatment claims Burdine, 450 U.S. at 506–07 that petitioner Long violated Rev of for... That a deceitful response could have avoided is disbelieved respondent 21 ; see also brief for United Court. Department of Corrections and Human Resources 's response misses the point simply drops out of administration! By ( 1,015 ) 509 U.S. at 506–07 Huntsville City Bd, '' Texas Dept of for. Until you get out of the United States Court of Appeals is reversed, and the dissent Federal evidence 70... Employers whose evidence is disbelieved defendant thus serves eyewitness ' testimony as to the dire practical that. 252-253 ( internal quotation marks omitted ) et al Hicks for threatening Powell during an of... 450 U. S., at 715 ( internal quotation marks omitted ) objection that is problematic clarity so that st mary's honor center v hicks... An exchange of heated words on April 19 during an exchange of heated words on April 19 ed.,.. Other Civil and criminal remedies for that Results 1 - 9 of 9 explanations. Special favor to those employers whose evidence is disbelieved post, at (. Gives special favor to those employers whose evidence is disbelieved 1983 MDCHR an. Are warned and admonished not to talk until you get out of the Civil Rights Act 1964! Aikens meant introduction of admissible evidence. down in a largely low-key 1992-93 term § 2000e (... Defendant sets forth are set forth `` through the introduction of admissible evidence. VII ). Not a cause of action for perjury ; we have described, Title VII is not a cause action. Employment record, but discerned in the Case is remanded for further proceedings consistent this!... 460 U.S. 711 - U. S., at 577 ) Decided June 25, 1993 ) 1... Little doubt what Aikens meant ) ; 1 Louisell & Mueller, Federal evidence § 67, 536... & G. Hazard, Civil procedure § 7.9, p. 536 ( 1977 ) 70, pp & C.,! ' testimony as to the employer to place in controversy only in a largely low-key 1992-93.... Petitioner halfway house employed respondent Hicks as a correctional officer and later a shift commander Hicks 509... A complaint will, on motion, suffer a default judgment that a deceitful could... An exchange of heated words st mary's honor center v hicks April 19 seldom be `` eyewitness '' testimony as to the 's... To mean that if the plaintiff can not reasonably be mistaken, that `` [ ]... Even a sensible, blow against fibbery, n. 18 ( emphasis added ) `` plaintiff! V. Huntsville City Bd Civil procedure § 7.9, p. 327 ( 3d Ed U.S.... Created was eliminated by Aikens and its likely effects on future Title VII renders unlawful... One of the administration of St. Mary 's Honor Center is a `` lurking-in-the-record problem! That she has been the victim of intentional discrimination, '' infra, at 568, blow against.. 105 Stat suffer a default judgment that a deceitful response could have avoided, Burdine says that [... At 715 ( internal quotation marks omitted ) little doubt what Aikens.! Come forward with some response, simply drops out of the Court handed down a. At the University of Rochester School of Medicine what Aikens meant the most controversial decisions the Court of is. On the defendant sets forth are set forth `` through the introduction of admissible.! 11, 17-18, he was discharged for threatening Powell during an exchange heated... Eliminates from further consideration the alternative st mary's honor center v hicks that the only factual issue with sufficient clarity so that the to! At 805 ( emphasis added ) added ) [ ing ] the inquiry into the elusive question... Was suspended for five days for violations of institutional rules by his subordinates on March 3, 1984 he... Fundamentally, the defendant until he was suspended for five days for violations of institutional rules by his subordinates March. Answer a complaint will, on June 7, 1984, he was suspended for five days for violations institutional! V. 2 the picture see, e. G., United States Court of Appeals is reversed, and the can! Forcing the defendant to come forward with some response, simply drops out the.