Disparate Treatment Flashcards
Protective Characteristics
- Race
- Color
- Religion
- Sex
- National origin
The McDonnell Douglas Test
- Member of protected class;
- Qualified for the job;
- Suffered an adverse action; and
- Some other evidence of discrimination the case.
*
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green
Issue: If an employer identifies some non-discriminatory reason to justify an action taken against an employee, may the employee demonstrate that the employer’s stated reason is merely pretext for actual discrimination?
Rule: If an employer identifies some non-discriminatory reason to justify an action taken against an employee, the employee may demonstrate the employer’s stated reason is merely pretext for actual discrimination.
Court sets forth the McDonnell Douglas Test:
He belongs to a racial minority
He applied and was qualified for a job for which the employer was seeking applicants;
That, despite his qualifications, he was rejected; and
That after his rejection, the position remained open and the employer continued to seek applicants from persons of complaint’s qualifications.
This case shows how to show a disparate treatment case with circumstantial evidence
Texas Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine
Issue: Whether, after the plaintiff has proven a prima facie case of discriminatory treatment, the burden shifts to the defendant to persuade the court by a preponderance of the evidence that legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for the challenged employment action existed?
SCOTUS’s holding in this case sets out the proper evidentiary burden shifting.
* The ultimate burden of persuasion remains with the plaintiff throughout the trial. This increased burden makes it more difficult for the plaintiff to succeed with a disparate treatment claim.
* The defendant’s burden is merely an intermediate evidentiary burden requiring the defendant to sustain only the burden of production. The defendant must simply set forth the reasons for rejection.
* The defendant’s burden is so easily met, that the plaintiff will almost always be required to persuade the court that the defendant’s reasons are pre-textual.
Plaintiff has burden of establishing prima facie case of disparate impact by a preponderance of the evidence.
Burden then shifts to the employer to produce nondiscriminatory reasons:
Burden of PRODUCTION, not persuasion;
Does not have to convince court or trier of fact; just needs to produce a reason.
Employer must only introduce enough evidence of a non-discriminatory reason;
Must be clear and reasonably specific.
St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks
Issue: Whether, in a suit against an employer alleging intentional racial discrimination in violation of § 703(a)(1) of Title VII, the trier of fact’s rejection of the employer’s asserted reasons for its actions mandates a finding for the plaintiff?
If the defendant carries the burden of production, the trier of fact proceeds to decide the ultimate question: Whether plaintiff has proven that the defendant intentionally discriminated against him because of his race?
The fact finder’s disbelief of the reasons put forward by the defendant may, together with the elements of the prima facie case, suffice to show intentional discrimination.
The rejection of the defendant’s proffered reasons will permit an inference of intentional discrimination.
If the defendant carries its burden of production, the presumption raised by the prima facie case is rebutted.
The determination that the defendant has met its burden of production involves no credibility assessment.
At the close of defendant’s case, the court is asked to decide whether an issue of fact remains for the trier of fact to determine. None does if, on the evidence presented:
* Any rational person would have to find the existence of facts constitute a prima facie case; and
* The defendant failed to meet its burden of production – i.e., has failed to introduce evidence which, taken as true, would permit the conclusion that there was a nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse action.
Reeves v. Sanderson
Issue: Is a plaintiff’s prima facie case of discrimination, combined with sufficient evidence for a reasonable fact finder to reject the employer’s nondiscriminatory reason for its decision, adequate to sustain a finding of liability for intentional discrimination?
Rule: A plaintiff’s prima facie case of discrimination, combined with sufficient evidence for a reasonable fact finder to reject the employer’s nondiscriminatory reason for its decision, is adequate to sustain a finding of liability for intentional discrimination.
Analysis: Under the three-prong burden-shifting framework articulated in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), a plaintiff alleging employment discrimination under the ADEA or Title VII must make a prima facie showing of discrimination.
The burden then shifts to the defendant to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the employment action.
Finally, the plaintiff has the burden of showing that the employer’s proffered reason is merely pretextual, and the true motivation for the employment action was discriminatory animus.
Although the burden of production shifts, the burden of proof always remains with the plaintiff. If the fact finder finds that the employer’s reason for the employment action lacks credibility, the fact finder may, but is not required, to find in favor of the plaintiff.
Factfinder Disbelief + Elements of Prima Facie Case = Intentional Discrimination
Court sides in favor of pre-text may
Direct Evidence
- Evidence which reflects a discriminatory or retaliatory attitude correlating to the discrimination or retaliation complained of by the employee…that if believed proves the existence of a fact without inference or presumption.
- Where there is direct evidence, there is no need to follow the McDonnell Douglas Test
- The Test is used to determine whether intentional discrimination has occurred. Where direct evidence is present, the determination has already been made and there is no need o consider the circumstantial evidence.
- Likelihood of direct evidence is rare today
- An employer is unlikely to say “you were fired because you are black”
Direct Evidence Test
- Be related to the protected class
- Proximate in time to the termination (depends on jurisdiction, usually no more than a week)
- Made by an individual with authority over the employment decision at issue, and
- Related to the employment decision at issue (does it have to do with this specific case. Needs to relate directly to plaintiff)
Where this is not satisfied, it is a stray remark
Price v. Waterhouse
Issue: May an employer who makes an employment decision with mixed motives avoid liability under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the same decision would have been made absent the discriminatory motive?
Rule: An employer who makes an employment decision with mixed motives may avoid liability under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the same decision would have been made absent the discriminatory motive.
Mixed Motives
- Where the defendant has a legitimate and illegitimate rationale for taking a particular employment action.
- Can limit damages
- Employer is not completely absolved of liability in these situations, but employee cannot recover compensatory and punitive damages.
Civil Rights Act of 1991
Overturned the Supreme Court decision in the case of “Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins,” which had previously allowed employers to avoid liability for discrimination even if gender played a motivating factor in an employment decision, as long as they could prove they would have made the same decision regardless of sex; essentially codifying a stricter standard for proving “mixed motive” discrimination cases under Title VII.
Bona Fide Occupational Qualification
- The job related and
- Goes to the essence or central mission of what the employer does.
Does not apply to race or color
After-Acquired Evidence
When a defendant takes an adverse action based solely on discriminatory motives and information later comes to light which would have justified employer’s decision.
Damages are cut off on the date that the employer discovers that the mis
Desert Palace Inc. v. Costa
Issue: Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., is a plaintiff required to offer direct evidence of discrimination in order to obtain a mixed-motives jury instruction?
Rule: Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., a plaintiff is not required to offer direct evidence of discrimination in order to obtain a mixed-motives jury instruction.
Analysis: Nothing in the statute’s plain language requires a plaintiff to make such a showing by direct evidence; it merely requires that a plaintiff “demonstrate” an employer’s practice was based in part on an unlawful consideration.
Keelan v. Majesco Software, Inc.
- If a plaintiff raises a mixed-motive discrimination claim, the plaintiff must first prove a prima facie case of discrimination before the court may consider what motivated the employer’s adverse actions.
- The plaintiff must offer sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact either that
- That the defendant’s reason is not true, but is instead a pretext for discrimination; or
- That the defendant’s reason, while true, is only one if the reasons for it’s conduct, and another motivating factor is the plaintiff’s protected characteristic.
