42:
399:
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.
351:, protested that his discharge was racially motivated. He and others, in a protest referred to in the case history as a "stall-in", 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.
394:
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
390:
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
455:
As for the impact of the case on the original plaintiff and defendant, the case was remanded to the
District Court to adjudicate the case in compliance with the Supreme Court's ruling. On remand, the district court found in favor of McDonnell Douglas. That decision was again appealed to the Eighth
432:
The plaintiff must then be afforded a fair opportunity to 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
398:
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
373:
The case was argued in front of the U.S District Court, the U.S. Court of
Appeals, and in front of the Supreme Court by Louis Gilden, a leading civil rights attorney and solo practitioner from St. Louis. The Supreme Court's decision was awarded to Green in a 9-0 vote.
354:
Soon after the locked-door incident, McDonnell
Douglas advertised for vacant mechanic positions, for which Green was qualified. Green applied, but was not hired, with McDonnell Douglas citing his participation in blocking traffic and chaining the building.
444:
cases. Instead of questioning whether the employer acted "because of" an unlawful discriminatory factor, the court may now investigate whether the employer's proffered reasons for taking the employment action at issue were in fact a pretext.
440:
This framework differs from earlier strategies for resolving employment discrimination cases in that it affords the employee a lower burden of proof for rebutting an employer's response to the initial
870:
475:
429:
The defendant (employer) must produce evidence of a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for its actions. If this occurs, then the presumption of discrimination dissipates.
860:
362:, alleging that he had been treated unfairly because of his activity in the Civil Rights Movement, but not alleging any outright racial bias. He then sued in
875:
766:
513:
470:
137:
83:
395:
trying to fill; (iii) though qualified, he was rejected; and (iv) thereafter the employer continued to seek applicants with complainant's qualifications.
850:
317:
Title VII prohibits employment discrimination "because of" certain reasons. While "because of" may be understood in the conversational sense, the
367:
297:
865:
17:
697:
448:
Since the case was handed down in 1973, all the federal courts have subsequently adopted the order and allocation of proof set out in
303:
271:
845:
840:
359:
344:
was a black mechanic and laboratory technician laid off by McDonnell
Douglas in 1964 during a reduction in force at the company.
452:
for all claims of disparate-treatment employment discrimination that are not based on direct evidence of discriminatory intent.
391:
to those with respect to 704 (a) and the dismissal of the former charge may have prejudiced respondent's efforts at trial.
366:
on both of those grounds, though the EEOC had not made a finding on the latter, and later appealed the decision to the
285:
46:
418:
where there is only relatively indirect evidence as to whether an employment action was discriminatory in nature. The
415:
409:
777:
728:
538:
160:
114:
746:
171:
813:
363:
584:
125:
855:
307:
795:
493:
311:
437:
In practice, the third step is the most difficult step for plaintiffs to achieve successfully.
205:
770:
517:
348:
310:
based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. After the
Supreme Court ruling, the
288:
regarding the burdens and nature of proof in proving a Title VII case and the order in which
141:
75:
786:
701:
520:
497:
8:
333:
233:
804:
197:
329:
241:
221:
698:"Crone & Mason, PLC - AgeRights - Summarized United States Supreme Court Cases"
426:
The plaintiff (employee) must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination.
189:
78:
383:
229:
209:
414:
Arguably the most important part of the Court's decision is the creation of a
834:
465:
822:
341:
217:
133:
293:
289:
90:
588:
542:
164:
157:
129:
118:
111:
675:
Bennett v. Health
Management Systems, 936 N.Y.S.2d 112, 119 (2011)
337:
41:
476:
List of United States
Supreme Court cases by the Burger Court
422:
case established that, in an employment discrimination case:
336:
at the time of the lawsuit, but has since been acquired by
168:
122:
284:, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), is a US employment law case by the
314:(Pub. L. 102-166) amended several sections of Title VII.
321:
case was the first landmark case to define this phrase.
871:
United States
Supreme Court cases of the Burger Court
471:
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 411
433:
one of the listed unlawful discriminatory parameters.
382:The Supreme Court held the following, delivered by
370:before the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
861:United States employment discrimination case law
832:
496:, Pub. L. 102-166, §3-12. Can be found at e.g.
296:present proof. It was the seminal case in the
623:
621:
360:Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
358:Green subsequently filed a complaint with the
306:is a United States federal law that prohibits
416:framework for the decision of Title VII cases
876:United States racial discrimination case law
456:Circuit Court of Appeals, and was affirmed.
368:U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
618:
298:McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework
304:Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
272:Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
851:Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
14:
833:
29:1973 United States Supreme Court case
347:Green, a long-time activist in the
24:
47:Supreme Court of the United States
25:
887:
866:United States Supreme Court cases
773:792 (1973) is available from:
755:
410:McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting
763:McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green
742:Green v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.
724:Green v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.
580:Green v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.
534:Green v. McDonnell-Douglas Corp.
510:McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green
281:McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green
154:Green v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.
108:Green v. McDonnell-Douglas Corp.
65:McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green
40:
734:
716:
690:
678:
669:
657:
645:
633:
403:
846:Civil rights movement case law
841:1973 in United States case law
606:
594:
572:
560:
548:
526:
503:
487:
13:
1:
332:was an aerospace company in
7:
459:
377:
286:United States Supreme Court
10:
892:
823:Oyez (oral argument audio)
407:
35:McDonnell Douglas v. Green
18:McDonnell Douglas v. Green
749: (8th Cir. 1976).
731: (E.D. Mo. 1975).
308:employment discrimination
270:
265:
254:
249:
183:
178:
148:
103:
98:
70:
60:
53:
39:
34:
729:390 F. Supp. 501
539:318 F. Supp. 846
494:Civil Rights Act of 1991
481:
324:
312:Civil Rights Act of 1991
666:, 411 U.S. at 804-805.
654:, 411 U.S. at 802-803.
603:, 411 U.S. at 796-798.
206:William J. Brennan Jr.
747:528 F.2d 1102
615:, 411 U.S. at 798-800
349:civil rights movement
167:1975); affirmed, 528
54:Argued March 28, 1973
585:463 F.2d 337
56:Decided May 14, 1973
814:Library of Congress
364:U.S. District Court
234:Lewis F. Powell Jr.
89:93 S. Ct. 1817; 36
687:, 411 U.S. at 804.
642:, 411 U.S. at 793.
630:, 411 U.S. at 802.
569:, 411 U.S. at 796.
557:, 411 U.S. at 795.
258:Powell, joined by
198:William O. Douglas
194:Associate Justices
856:McDonnell Douglas
685:McDonnell Douglas
664:McDonnell Douglas
652:McDonnell Douglas
640:McDonnell Douglas
628:McDonnell Douglas
613:McDonnell Douglas
601:McDonnell Douglas
567:McDonnell Douglas
555:McDonnell Douglas
450:McDonnell Douglas
420:McDonnell Douglas
330:McDonnell Douglas
319:McDonnell Douglas
277:
276:
242:William Rehnquist
222:Thurgood Marshall
16:(Redirected from
883:
827:
821:
818:
812:
809:
803:
800:
794:
791:
785:
782:
776:
750:
744:
738:
732:
726:
720:
714:
713:
711:
709:
700:. Archived from
694:
688:
682:
676:
673:
667:
661:
655:
649:
643:
637:
631:
625:
616:
610:
604:
598:
592:
582:
576:
570:
564:
558:
552:
546:
536:
530:
524:
507:
501:
491:
190:Warren E. Burger
179:Court membership
174:(8th Cir. 1976).
144:1036 (1972).
44:
43:
32:
31:
21:
891:
890:
886:
885:
884:
882:
881:
880:
831:
830:
825:
819:
816:
810:
807:
801:
798:
792:
789:
783:
780:
774:
758:
753:
740:
739:
735:
722:
721:
717:
707:
705:
704:on July 5, 2007
696:
695:
691:
683:
679:
674:
670:
662:
658:
650:
646:
638:
634:
626:
619:
611:
607:
599:
595:
578:
577:
573:
565:
561:
553:
549:
532:
531:
527:
508:
504:
492:
488:
484:
462:
412:
406:
380:
327:
232:
220:
208:
94:
55:
49:
30:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
889:
879:
878:
873:
868:
863:
858:
853:
848:
843:
829:
828:
796:Google Scholar
757:
756:External links
754:
752:
751:
733:
715:
689:
677:
668:
656:
644:
632:
617:
605:
593:
571:
559:
547:
525:
502:
485:
483:
480:
479:
478:
473:
468:
461:
458:
435:
434:
430:
427:
408:Main article:
405:
402:
401:
400:
396:
392:
384:Justice Powell
379:
376:
326:
323:
275:
274:
268:
267:
263:
262:
256:
252:
251:
247:
246:
245:
244:
230:Harry Blackmun
210:Potter Stewart
195:
192:
187:
181:
180:
176:
175:
150:
146:
145:
105:
101:
100:
96:
95:
88:
72:
68:
67:
62:
61:Full case name
58:
57:
51:
50:
45:
37:
36:
28:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
888:
877:
874:
872:
869:
867:
864:
862:
859:
857:
854:
852:
849:
847:
844:
842:
839:
838:
836:
824:
815:
806:
797:
788:
779:
778:CourtListener
772:
768:
764:
760:
759:
748:
743:
737:
730:
725:
719:
703:
699:
693:
686:
681:
672:
665:
660:
653:
648:
641:
636:
629:
624:
622:
614:
609:
602:
597:
590:
586:
581:
575:
568:
563:
556:
551:
544:
540:
535:
529:
522:
519:
515:
511:
506:
499:
495:
490:
486:
477:
474:
472:
469:
467:
464:
463:
457:
453:
451:
446:
443:
438:
431:
428:
425:
424:
423:
421:
417:
411:
397:
393:
389:
388:
387:
385:
375:
371:
369:
365:
361:
356:
352:
350:
345:
343:
339:
335:
331:
322:
320:
315:
313:
309:
305:
301:
299:
295:
291:
287:
283:
282:
273:
269:
264:
261:
257:
253:
248:
243:
239:
235:
231:
227:
223:
219:
215:
211:
207:
203:
199:
196:
193:
191:
188:
186:Chief Justice
185:
184:
182:
177:
173:
170:
166:
162:
159:
155:
151:
147:
143:
139:
135:
131:
127:
124:
120:
116:
113:
109:
106:
102:
97:
92:
86:
85:
80:
77:
73:
69:
66:
63:
59:
52:
48:
38:
33:
27:
19:
762:
741:
736:
723:
718:
706:. Retrieved
702:the original
692:
684:
680:
671:
663:
659:
651:
647:
639:
635:
627:
612:
608:
600:
596:
579:
574:
566:
562:
554:
550:
533:
528:
523: (1973).
509:
505:
489:
466:US labor law
454:
449:
447:
441:
439:
436:
419:
413:
404:Significance
381:
372:
357:
353:
346:
328:
318:
316:
302:
280:
279:
278:
266:Laws applied
259:
250:Case opinion
237:
225:
213:
201:
153:
107:
99:Case history
82:
64:
26:
591: 1970).
545: 1970).
541:, 847 (
442:prima facie
342:Percy Green
218:Byron White
152:On remand,
121:1970); 463
835:Categories
294:defendants
290:plaintiffs
149:Subsequent
498:FindUSLaw
334:St. Louis
260:unanimous
136:granted,
91:L. Ed. 2d
71:Citations
761:Text of
589:8th Cir.
543:E.D. Mo.
521:792, 794
460:See also
378:Judgment
255:Majority
165:E.D. Mo.
158:F. Supp.
130:8th Cir.
119:E.D. Mo.
112:F. Supp.
787:Findlaw
708:June 4,
132:1970);
826:
820:
817:
811:
808:
805:Justia
802:
799:
793:
790:
784:
781:
775:
745:,
727:,
587: (
583:,
537:,
512:,
338:Boeing
240:
238:·
236:
228:
226:·
224:
216:
214:·
212:
204:
202:·
200:
156:, 390
110:, 318
769:
516:
482:Notes
325:Facts
140:
134:cert.
104:Prior
771:U.S.
710:2007
518:U.S.
292:and
172:1102
169:F.2d
142:U.S.
123:F.2d
84:more
76:U.S.
74:411
767:411
514:411
340:.
161:501
138:409
126:337
115:846
93:668
79:792
837::
765:,
620:^
386:.
300:.
712:.
500:.
163:(
128:(
117:(
87:)
81:(
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.