31:
388:
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.
340:, 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.
383:
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
379:
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
444:
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
421:
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
387:
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
362:
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.
343:
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.
433:
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.
429:
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
859:
464:
849:
864:
755:
502:
459:
126:
72:
418:
The defendant (employer) must produce evidence of a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for its actions. If this occurs, then the presumption of discrimination dissipates.
839:
351:, 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
356:
286:
854:
384:
trying to fill; (iii) though qualified, he was rejected; and (iv) thereafter the employer continued to seek applicants with complainant's qualifications.
292:
260:
306:
Title VII prohibits employment discrimination "because of" certain reasons. While "because of" may be understood in the conversational sense, the
834:
829:
348:
686:
437:
Since the case was handed down in 1973, all the federal courts have subsequently adopted the order and allocation of proof set out in
274:
35:
404:
398:
333:
was a black mechanic and laboratory technician laid off by McDonnell
Douglas in 1964 during a reduction in force at the company.
441:
for all claims of disparate-treatment employment discrimination that are not based on direct evidence of discriminatory intent.
380:
to those with respect to 704 (a) and the dismissal of the former charge may have prejudiced respondent's efforts at trial.
352:
355:
on both of those grounds, though the EEOC had not made a finding on the latter, and later appealed the decision to the
407:
where there is only relatively indirect evidence as to whether an employment action was discriminatory in nature. The
844:
296:
766:
482:
300:
717:
527:
149:
103:
735:
160:
802:
573:
194:
114:
759:
506:
337:
130:
64:
784:
322:
222:
186:
426:
In practice, the third step is the most difficult step for plaintiffs to achieve successfully.
318:
230:
210:
299:
based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. After the
Supreme Court ruling, the
277:
regarding the burdens and nature of proof in proving a Title VII case and the order in which
775:
178:
690:
509:
486:
793:
372:
218:
198:
823:
687:"Crone & Mason, PLC - AgeRights - Summarized United States Supreme Court Cases"
454:
415:
The plaintiff (employee) must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination.
67:
330:
206:
403:
Arguably the most important part of the Court's decision is the creation of a
122:
282:
278:
79:
811:
577:
531:
153:
146:
118:
107:
100:
326:
664:
Bennett v. Health
Management Systems, 936 N.Y.S.2d 112, 119 (2011)
157:
111:
30:
465:
List of United States
Supreme Court cases by the Burger Court
411:
case established that, in an employment discrimination case:
325:
at the time of the lawsuit, but has since been acquired by
273:, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), is a US employment law case by the
303:(Pub. L. 102-166) amended several sections of Title VII.
310:
case was the first landmark case to define this phrase.
860:
United States
Supreme Court cases of the Burger Court
460:
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 411
422:
one of the listed unlawful discriminatory parameters.
371:The Supreme Court held the following, delivered by
254:
243:
238:
167:
137:
92:
87:
59:
49:
42:
23:
359:before the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
850:United States employment discrimination case law
485:, Pub. L. 102-166, §3-12. Can be found at e.g.
285:present proof. It was the seminal case in the
612:
610:
349:Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
347:Green subsequently filed a complaint with the
295:is a United States federal law that prohibits
405:framework for the decision of Title VII cases
8:
865:United States racial discrimination case law
445:Circuit Court of Appeals, and was affirmed.
357:U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
287:McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework
20:
293:Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
261:Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
840:Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
475:
18:1973 United States Supreme Court case
7:
336:Green, a long-time activist in the
36:Supreme Court of the United States
14:
855:United States Supreme Court cases
762:792 (1973) is available from:
399:McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting
752:McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green
731:Green v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.
713:Green v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.
569:Green v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.
523:Green v. McDonnell-Douglas Corp.
499:McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green
270:McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green
143:Green v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.
97:Green v. McDonnell-Douglas Corp.
54:McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green
29:
835:Civil rights movement case law
830:1973 in United States case law
1:
321:was an aerospace company in
275:United States Supreme Court
881:
812:Oyez (oral argument audio)
396:
24:McDonnell Douglas v. Green
738: (8th Cir. 1976).
720: (E.D. Mo. 1975).
297:employment discrimination
259:
172:
28:
718:390 F. Supp. 501
528:318 F. Supp. 846
483:Civil Rights Act of 1991
301:Civil Rights Act of 1991
655:, 411 U.S. at 804-805.
643:, 411 U.S. at 802-803.
592:, 411 U.S. at 796-798.
195:William J. Brennan Jr.
736:528 F.2d 1102
604:, 411 U.S. at 798-800
338:civil rights movement
156:1975); affirmed, 528
43:Argued March 28, 1973
574:463 F.2d 337
45:Decided May 14, 1973
803:Library of Congress
353:U.S. District Court
223:Lewis F. Powell Jr.
78:93 S. Ct. 1817; 36
676:, 411 U.S. at 804.
631:, 411 U.S. at 793.
619:, 411 U.S. at 802.
558:, 411 U.S. at 796.
546:, 411 U.S. at 795.
247:Powell, joined by
187:William O. Douglas
183:Associate Justices
845:McDonnell Douglas
674:McDonnell Douglas
653:McDonnell Douglas
641:McDonnell Douglas
629:McDonnell Douglas
617:McDonnell Douglas
602:McDonnell Douglas
590:McDonnell Douglas
556:McDonnell Douglas
544:McDonnell Douglas
439:McDonnell Douglas
409:McDonnell Douglas
319:McDonnell Douglas
308:McDonnell Douglas
266:
265:
231:William Rehnquist
211:Thurgood Marshall
872:
816:
810:
807:
801:
798:
792:
789:
783:
780:
774:
771:
765:
739:
733:
727:
721:
715:
709:
703:
702:
700:
698:
689:. Archived from
683:
677:
671:
665:
662:
656:
650:
644:
638:
632:
626:
620:
614:
605:
599:
593:
587:
581:
571:
565:
559:
553:
547:
541:
535:
525:
519:
513:
496:
490:
480:
179:Warren E. Burger
168:Court membership
163:(8th Cir. 1976).
133:1036 (1972).
33:
32:
21:
880:
879:
875:
874:
873:
871:
870:
869:
820:
819:
814:
808:
805:
799:
796:
790:
787:
781:
778:
772:
769:
763:
747:
742:
729:
728:
724:
711:
710:
706:
696:
694:
693:on July 5, 2007
685:
684:
680:
672:
668:
663:
659:
651:
647:
639:
635:
627:
623:
615:
608:
600:
596:
588:
584:
567:
566:
562:
554:
550:
542:
538:
521:
520:
516:
497:
493:
481:
477:
473:
451:
401:
395:
369:
316:
221:
209:
197:
83:
44:
38:
19:
12:
11:
5:
878:
876:
868:
867:
862:
857:
852:
847:
842:
837:
832:
822:
821:
818:
817:
785:Google Scholar
746:
745:External links
743:
741:
740:
722:
704:
678:
666:
657:
645:
633:
621:
606:
594:
582:
560:
548:
536:
514:
491:
474:
472:
469:
468:
467:
462:
457:
450:
447:
424:
423:
419:
416:
397:Main article:
394:
391:
390:
389:
385:
381:
373:Justice Powell
368:
365:
315:
312:
264:
263:
257:
256:
252:
251:
245:
241:
240:
236:
235:
234:
233:
219:Harry Blackmun
199:Potter Stewart
184:
181:
176:
170:
169:
165:
164:
139:
135:
134:
94:
90:
89:
85:
84:
77:
61:
57:
56:
51:
50:Full case name
47:
46:
40:
39:
34:
26:
25:
17:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
877:
866:
863:
861:
858:
856:
853:
851:
848:
846:
843:
841:
838:
836:
833:
831:
828:
827:
825:
813:
804:
795:
786:
777:
768:
767:CourtListener
761:
757:
753:
749:
748:
744:
737:
732:
726:
723:
719:
714:
708:
705:
692:
688:
682:
679:
675:
670:
667:
661:
658:
654:
649:
646:
642:
637:
634:
630:
625:
622:
618:
613:
611:
607:
603:
598:
595:
591:
586:
583:
579:
575:
570:
564:
561:
557:
552:
549:
545:
540:
537:
533:
529:
524:
518:
515:
511:
508:
504:
500:
495:
492:
488:
484:
479:
476:
470:
466:
463:
461:
458:
456:
453:
452:
448:
446:
442:
440:
435:
432:
427:
420:
417:
414:
413:
412:
410:
406:
400:
392:
386:
382:
378:
377:
376:
374:
366:
364:
360:
358:
354:
350:
345:
341:
339:
334:
332:
328:
324:
320:
313:
311:
309:
304:
302:
298:
294:
290:
288:
284:
280:
276:
272:
271:
262:
258:
253:
250:
246:
242:
237:
232:
228:
224:
220:
216:
212:
208:
204:
200:
196:
192:
188:
185:
182:
180:
177:
175:Chief Justice
174:
173:
171:
166:
162:
159:
155:
151:
148:
144:
140:
136:
132:
128:
124:
120:
116:
113:
109:
105:
102:
98:
95:
91:
86:
81:
75:
74:
69:
66:
62:
58:
55:
52:
48:
41:
37:
27:
22:
16:
751:
730:
725:
712:
707:
695:. Retrieved
691:the original
681:
673:
669:
660:
652:
648:
640:
636:
628:
624:
616:
601:
597:
589:
585:
568:
563:
555:
551:
543:
539:
522:
517:
512: (1973).
498:
494:
478:
455:US labor law
443:
438:
436:
430:
428:
425:
408:
402:
393:Significance
370:
361:
346:
342:
335:
317:
307:
305:
291:
269:
268:
267:
255:Laws applied
248:
239:Case opinion
226:
214:
202:
190:
142:
96:
88:Case history
71:
53:
15:
580: 1970).
534: 1970).
530:, 847 (
431:prima facie
331:Percy Green
207:Byron White
141:On remand,
110:1970); 463
824:Categories
283:defendants
279:plaintiffs
138:Subsequent
487:FindUSLaw
323:St. Louis
249:unanimous
125:granted,
80:L. Ed. 2d
60:Citations
750:Text of
578:8th Cir.
532:E.D. Mo.
510:792, 794
449:See also
367:Judgment
244:Majority
154:E.D. Mo.
147:F. Supp.
119:8th Cir.
108:E.D. Mo.
101:F. Supp.
776:Findlaw
697:June 4,
121:1970);
815:
809:
806:
800:
797:
794:Justia
791:
788:
782:
779:
773:
770:
764:
734:,
716:,
576: (
572:,
526:,
501:,
327:Boeing
229:
227:·
225:
217:
215:·
213:
205:
203:·
201:
193:
191:·
189:
145:, 390
99:, 318
758:
505:
471:Notes
314:Facts
129:
123:cert.
93:Prior
760:U.S.
699:2007
507:U.S.
281:and
161:1102
158:F.2d
131:U.S.
112:F.2d
73:more
65:U.S.
63:411
756:411
503:411
329:.
150:501
127:409
115:337
104:846
82:668
68:792
826::
754:,
609:^
375:.
289:.
701:.
489:.
152:(
117:(
106:(
76:)
70:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.