295:
articulating a nondiscriminatory justification for the employment decision. Because this burden is so easily met, the plaintiff will almost always be forced to persuade a court that the defendant's reasons are pretexts and not the true reasons for the employment decision. The plaintiff's burden, therefore, is magnified because he will have to proffer convincing evidence analyzing the employer's intent. Consequently, this higher evidentiary burden has created an increased incentive for plaintiffs to allege discrimination under the disparate impact theory where the employer's intent is not at issue.
42:
286:
was merely an intermediate evidentiary burden requiring the defendant to sustain only the burden of production, never the burden of persuasion. The burden of proof, therefore, never actually shifted from the plaintiff to the defendant but remained with the plaintiff. Furthermore, the Court specified that to rebut the plaintiff's prima facie case, the defendant must simply set forth the reasons for the plaintiff's rejection. Specifically, the employer must create a genuine issue as to whether he intended to discriminate.
463:
Comparative evidence involves showing that the employer's justifications have been applied only to certain protected individuals or that the employer has departed from its normal policies. Id. The plaintiff usually uses statistics to make a comparative showing. Id. At this last evidentiary stage, the plaintiff's burden of showing pretext merges with his burden of persuading the court that the defendant has a discriminatory motive.
285:
In holding that the circuit court misconstrued the defendant's evidentiary burden, the
Supreme Court attempted to set out the proper approach. The Court concluded that the ultimate burden of persuasion remained with the plaintiff throughout the trial. The Court explained that the defendant's burden
462:
See Smalls, supra at 265. To illustrate pretext a plaintiff may offer direct or comparative evidence of discriminatory intent. See
Corbett, supra note 8, at 231 (describing alternative methods of proof for deriving pretext). Direct evidence includes discriminatory statements or admissions. Id.
294:
In limiting the defendant's burden merely to producing evidence and placing the entire burden of persuasion on the plaintiff, the Court made it more difficult for the plaintiff to succeed with a disparate treatment claim. A defendant could sustain his or her duty to produce evidence simply by
136:
In a Title VII discrimination claim, the ultimate burden of persuasion remains with the plaintiff throughout the trial; a shift to a defendant's burden is merely an intermediate evidentiary burden requiring the defendant to sustain only the burden of production, not the burden of
452:
See B. SCHLEI & P. GROSSMAN, EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION LAW 1326 (2d ed. 1983) at 1316-17 (asserting that majority of disparate treatment cases turn on ability of plaintiff to demonstrate that business reason was pretext for actual discriminatory
276:
The Court of
Appeals held that the defendant carried the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he had legitimate reasons for the employment decision, and that others promoted and hired were better qualified than the plaintiff.
475:, 529 (11th Cir. 1983) (holding that Title VII liability requires plaintiff to establish that employer's business justification was mere pretext for discriminatory action and that employer acted with discriminatory intent).
569:
559:
484:
See
Comment, Disparate Impact and Subjective Employment Criteria Under Title VII, 54 U. CHI. L. REV. 957, 960-62 (1987) (discussing growing importance of disparate impact theory).
574:
507:
327:
304:
83:
263:
Ms
Burdine, a female employee, alleged that the defendant's failure to promote her and subsequent decision to terminate her were premised on illegal gender discrimination.
443:
See Smalls, The Burden of Proof in Title VII Cases, 25 HOW. L.J. 247, (1982), at 265 (commenting that
Burdine approach creates severe evidentiary burden for plaintiff).
554:
234:
383:, 450 U.S. at 253; see also 9 J. WIGMORE, EVIDENCE IN TRIALS AT COMMON LAW §§ 2485-2489 (1985) (contending that burden of persuasion never shifts).
564:
579:
46:
518:
252:
248:
364:
123:
17:
472:
160:
511:
331:
75:
527:
192:
204:
196:
180:
152:
536:
334:
184:
168:
548:
102:
98:
78:
172:
94:
90:
368:
120:
41:
570:
United States
Supreme Court cases of the Burger Court
305:
List of United States
Supreme Court cases, volume 450
228:
217:
212:
141:
130:
115:
110:
70:
60:
53:
34:
560:United States employment discrimination case law
244:Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine
97:75; 49 U.S.L.W. 4214; 25 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (
8:
575:United States gender discrimination case law
403:
401:
504:Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine
360:Burdine v. Texas Dept. of Community Affairs
324:Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine
65:Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine
35:Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine
18:Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine
31:
235:Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
316:
469:Clark v. Huntsville City Bd. of Educ.
29:1981 United States Supreme Court case
7:
47:Supreme Court of the United States
25:
555:United States Supreme Court cases
514:248 (1981) is available from:
40:
565:1981 in United States case law
1:
492:38 Am. U.L. Rev. 919, 929-930
247:, 450 U.S. 248 (1981), is a
101:) 113; 25 Empl. Prac. Dec. (
253:United States Supreme Court
596:
580:History of women in Texas
233:
146:
135:
39:
467:, 450 U.S. at 256; cf.
249:United States labor law
54:Argued December 9, 1980
161:William J. Brennan Jr.
126:(vacated and remanded)
395:, 450 U.S. at 253-54.
56:Decided March 4, 1981
365:608 F.2d 563
89:101 S. Ct. 1089; 67
193:Lewis F. Powell Jr.
434:, 450 U.S. at 254.
422:, 450 U.S. at 257.
410:, 450 U.S. at 253.
349:, 450 U.S. at 251.
221:Powell, joined by
157:Associate Justices
240:
239:
197:William Rehnquist
181:Thurgood Marshall
16:(Redirected from
587:
541:
535:
532:
526:
523:
517:
485:
482:
476:
460:
454:
450:
444:
441:
435:
429:
423:
417:
411:
405:
396:
390:
384:
378:
372:
362:
356:
350:
344:
338:
321:
272:Court of Appeals
153:Warren E. Burger
142:Court membership
44:
43:
32:
21:
595:
594:
590:
589:
588:
586:
585:
584:
545:
544:
539:
533:
530:
524:
521:
515:
499:
489:
488:
483:
479:
461:
457:
451:
447:
442:
438:
430:
426:
418:
414:
406:
399:
391:
387:
379:
375:
358:
357:
353:
345:
341:
322:
318:
313:
301:
292:
283:
274:
269:
261:
205:John P. Stevens
195:
183:
171:
106:
55:
49:
30:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
593:
591:
583:
582:
577:
572:
567:
562:
557:
547:
546:
543:
542:
528:Google Scholar
498:
497:External links
495:
494:
493:
487:
486:
477:
455:
445:
436:
424:
412:
397:
385:
373:
351:
339:
315:
314:
312:
309:
308:
307:
300:
297:
291:
288:
282:
279:
273:
270:
268:
265:
260:
257:
238:
237:
231:
230:
226:
225:
219:
215:
214:
210:
209:
208:
207:
185:Harry Blackmun
169:Potter Stewart
158:
155:
150:
144:
143:
139:
138:
133:
132:
128:
127:
117:
113:
112:
108:
107:
88:
72:
68:
67:
62:
61:Full case name
58:
57:
51:
50:
45:
37:
36:
28:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
592:
581:
578:
576:
573:
571:
568:
566:
563:
561:
558:
556:
553:
552:
550:
538:
529:
520:
519:CourtListener
513:
509:
505:
501:
500:
496:
491:
490:
481:
478:
474:
470:
466:
459:
456:
449:
446:
440:
437:
433:
428:
425:
421:
416:
413:
409:
404:
402:
398:
394:
389:
386:
382:
377:
374:
370:
366:
361:
355:
352:
348:
343:
340:
336:
333:
329:
325:
320:
317:
310:
306:
303:
302:
298:
296:
289:
287:
281:Supreme Court
280:
278:
271:
266:
264:
258:
256:
254:
250:
246:
245:
236:
232:
227:
224:
220:
216:
211:
206:
202:
198:
194:
190:
186:
182:
178:
174:
170:
166:
162:
159:
156:
154:
151:
149:Chief Justice
148:
147:
145:
140:
134:
129:
125:
122:
118:
114:
109:
104:
100:
96:
92:
86:
85:
80:
77:
73:
69:
66:
63:
59:
52:
48:
38:
33:
27:
19:
503:
480:
473:717 F.2d 525
468:
464:
458:
448:
439:
431:
427:
419:
415:
407:
392:
388:
380:
376:
359:
354:
346:
342:
337: (1981).
323:
319:
293:
290:Significance
284:
275:
262:
251:case of the
243:
242:
241:
229:Laws applied
222:
213:Case opinion
200:
188:
176:
164:
111:Case history
82:
64:
26:
371: 1979).
173:Byron White
137:persuasion.
549:Categories
311:References
105:) ¶ 31,544
95:U.S. LEXIS
93:207; 1981
223:unanimous
91:L. Ed. 2d
71:Citations
502:Text of
453:intent).
369:5th Cir.
299:See also
267:Judgment
218:Majority
465:Burdine
432:Burdine
420:Burdine
408:Burdine
393:Burdine
381:Burdine
347:Burdine
131:Holding
540:
537:Justia
534:
531:
525:
522:
516:
367: (
363:,
203:
201:·
199:
191:
189:·
187:
179:
177:·
175:
167:
165:·
163:
510:
330:
259:Facts
116:Prior
512:U.S.
332:U.S.
121:F.2d
119:608
84:more
76:U.S.
74:450
508:450
335:248
328:450
124:563
103:CCH
99:BNA
79:248
551::
506:,
471:,
400:^
326:,
255:.
87:)
81:(
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.