158:, the court revisited the third step in the framework. Initially explaining that affected employee should merely "be afforded a fair opportunity to show that petitioner's stated reason for respondent's rejection was in fact, pretext" the court revised its initial guidance and added that the employee must also show that the employer's actions were in fact motivated by discrimination.
171:, combined with sufficient evidence to find that the employer’s asserted justification for its action was false, may permit the trier of fact to conclude that the employer unlawfully discriminated," and that the plaintiff need not always introduce additional and independent evidence of discrimination.
394:
369:
297:
272:
232:
31:
292:
136:
Then the plaintiff may prevail only if the plaintiff can show that the employer's response is merely a pretext for behavior actually motivated by discrimination.
210:
that, after the employee's rejection, the position remained open and the employer continued to seek applicants from persons of complainant's qualifications.
364:
163:
79:
168:
267:
154:
90:
framework is typically used when a case lacks direct evidence of discrimination. In other cases, courts may decide not to use the
227:
330:
49:
101:
96:
68:
399:
185:
73:
64:
193:
also outlined the requirements for the first burden placed on plaintiffs in Title VII trials, i.e., the initial
122:
case by a preponderance of the evidence, i.e. allege facts that are adequate to support a legal claim. (see
17:
373:
301:
276:
236:
141:
204:
that the employee applied and was qualified for a job for which the employer was seeking applicants;
56:
376:
304:
239:
133:
case by "articulat some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the employee’s rejection."
279:
190:
388:
60:
335:: The Third Circuit's Revival of the "Pretext-Only" Standard at Summary Judgment"
118:
144:
in the second step, the plaintiff bears the burden of persuasion at all times.
53:
207:
that, despite the employee's qualifications, the employee was rejected; and
67:", that lacks direct evidence of discrimination. It was introduced by the
94:
framework, and instead evaluate disparate treatment claims under the
129:
Then the burden of production shifts to the employer, to rebut this
197:
showing of discrimination. The plaintiff in such a case must show
167:, the Court emphasized that "a plaintiff’s prima facie case of
112:
The framework as currently applied by courts is as follows:
27:
Procedure in U.S. law for employment discrimination claims
123:
83:and has been elaborated on in subsequent cases.
201:that the employee belongs to a racial minority;
250:
248:
8:
395:Anti-discrimination law in the United States
365:Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc.
293:Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine
164:Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc.
80:Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine
48:refers to the procedure for adjudicating a
32:United States employment discrimination law
18:McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting formula
219:
59:claim, in particular a "private, non-
7:
331:"Employment Law - Ramifications of
140:Even though the employer bears the
116:A plaintiff must first establish a
25:
333:St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks
268:St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks
228:McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green
155:St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks
1:
50:motion for summary judgement
329:Donahue, Alison M. (1996).
183:In his majority opinion in
69:United States Supreme Court
416:
148:Evolution of the framework
124:the below section for more
74:McDonnell Douglas v. Green
65:employment discrimination
46:burden-shifting framework
339:Villanova Law Review
142:burden of production
175:Requirements for a
57:disparate treatment
319:, 411 U.S. at 804.
257:, 411 U.S. at 802.
169:age discrimination
400:McDonnell Douglas
317:McDonnell Douglas
255:McDonnell Douglas
186:McDonnell Douglas
92:McDonnell-Douglas
88:McDonnell-Douglas
44:McDonnell-Douglas
37:McDonnell Douglas
16:(Redirected from
407:
380:
361:
355:
354:
352:
350:
326:
320:
314:
308:
289:
283:
264:
258:
252:
243:
224:
97:Price Waterhouse
21:
415:
414:
410:
409:
408:
406:
405:
404:
385:
384:
383:
362:
358:
348:
346:
345:(4): 1298, n.12
328:
327:
323:
315:
311:
290:
286:
265:
261:
253:
246:
225:
221:
217:
181:
150:
110:
39:burden-shifting
28:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
413:
411:
403:
402:
397:
387:
386:
382:
381:
356:
321:
309:
284:
259:
244:
218:
216:
213:
212:
211:
208:
205:
202:
191:Justice Powell
180:
173:
149:
146:
138:
137:
134:
127:
109:
106:
26:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
412:
401:
398:
396:
393:
392:
390:
378:
375:
371:
367:
366:
360:
357:
344:
340:
336:
334:
325:
322:
318:
313:
310:
306:
303:
299:
295:
294:
288:
285:
281:
278:
274:
270:
269:
263:
260:
256:
251:
249:
245:
241:
238:
234:
230:
229:
223:
220:
214:
209:
206:
203:
200:
199:
198:
196:
192:
188:
187:
178:
174:
172:
170:
166:
165:
159:
157:
156:
147:
145:
143:
135:
132:
128:
125:
121:
120:
115:
114:
113:
107:
105:
104:" framework.
103:
99:
98:
93:
89:
84:
82:
81:
76:
75:
70:
66:
62:
58:
55:
51:
47:
45:
40:
38:
33:
19:
379: (2000).
363:
359:
347:. Retrieved
342:
338:
332:
324:
316:
312:
307: (1981).
291:
287:
282: (1993).
266:
262:
254:
242: (1973).
226:
222:
194:
184:
182:
176:
162:
160:
153:
151:
139:
130:
117:
111:
102:mixed motive
95:
91:
87:
85:
78:
72:
63:challenging
61:class action
43:
42:
36:
35:
29:
377:133, 148–49
349:19 December
305:248, 255–56
195:prima facie
177:prima facie
131:prima facie
119:prima facie
389:Categories
215:References
161:Then, in
108:Framework
54:Title VII
240:792, 800
52:under a
41:or the
368:,
296:,
271:,
231:,
372:
300:
275:
235:
374:U.S.
351:2019
302:U.S.
277:U.S.
237:U.S.
179:case
86:The
77:and
370:530
298:450
280:502
273:509
233:411
152:In
71:in
30:In
391::
343:41
341:.
337:.
247:^
189:,
34:,
353:.
126:)
100:"
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.