Document: 509 U.S. 502 113 S.Ct. 2742 125 L.Ed.2d 407 ST. MARY'S HONOR CENTER, et al., Petitionersv.Melvin HICKS. No. 92-602. Argued April 20, 1993. Decided June 25, Syllabus * Petitioner halfway house employed respondent Hicks as a correctional officer and later shift commander. After being demoted ultimately discharged, filed suit, alleging that these actions had been taken because of his race in violation of, inter alia, § 703(a)(1) Title VII the Civil Rights Act 1964. Adhering to allocation burden production order for presentation proof discriminatory-treatment cases was established McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 792, 93 1817, 36 668 District Court found established, by preponderance evidence, prima facie case racial discrimination; petitioners rebutted presumption introducing evidence two legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons their actions; petitioners' were pretextual. It nonetheless held failed carry ultimate proving adverse racially motivated. In setting aside this determination, Appeals entitled judgment matter law once he proved all proffered Held: The trier fact's rejection an employer's asserted its does not entitle plaintiff law. Pp. ____. (a) Under Douglas, discrimination, Texas Dept. Community Affairs Burdine, 450 248, 252-253, 101 1089, 1093-94, 67 207 arose unlawfully discriminated against him, id., at 254, S.Ct., 1094, requiring favor unless came forward with explanation. This placed upon producing reasons, which, if believed fact, would support finding unlawful discrimination did cause actions. Id., 254-255, n. 8, 1094-1095, 8. However, presumptions, see Fed.Rule Evid. 301, persuasion remained times Hicks, 253, 1093-1094. erred when it concluded disbelief same position they silent face Hicks' discrimination. Petitioners' whether persuasive or not, satisfied intentional framework then became irrelevant, fact required decide question fact: proven intentionally him race. Compelling disregard fundamental principle Rule 301 proof, ignore admonition bears persuasion. (b) has no authority impose liability employer alleged discriminatory employment practices factfinder determines discriminated. Nor may substitute much different lesser explanation action believable. Any doubt created dictum Burdine falsity is alone enough sustain plaintiff's eliminated United States Postal Service Bd. Governors Aikens, 460 711, 714, 103 1478, 1481, 75 403. (c) concerns dissent decision will produce dire practical consequences are unfounded. 970 F.2d 487 (CA8 1992), reversed remanded. SCALIA, J., delivered opinion Court, which REHNQUIST, C.J., O'CONNOR, KENNEDY, THOMAS, JJ., joined. SOUTER, dissenting opinion, WHITE, BLACKMUN, STEVENS, Gary L. Gardner, Jefferson City, MO, petitioners. Charles R. Oldham, St. Louis, respondent. Edward C. DuMont, Washington, DC, E.E.O.C., amici curiae, special leave Court. Justice SCALIA 1 We granted certiorari determine whether, suit 1964, 78 Stat. 255, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a)(1), mandates plaintiff. 2 Mary's Honor Center (St. Mary's) operated Missouri Department Corrections Human Resources (MDCHR). Respondent Melvin black man, hired August 1978 promoted commander, one six supervisory positions, February 1980. 3 1983 MDCHR conducted investigation administration Mary's, resulted extensive changes January 1984. retained position, but John Powell new chief custody (respondent's immediate supervisor) petitioner Steve Long superintendent. Prior personnel enjoyed satisfactory record, soon thereafter subject repeated, increasingly severe, disciplinary He suspended five days violations institutional rules subordinates on March 3, received letter reprimand failure conduct adequate brawl between inmates occurred during 21. from commander ensure entered use vehicle into official log book 19, Finally, 7, 1984, discharged threatening exchange heated words 19. 4 brought Eastern Missouri, violated Rev.Stat. 1979, 1983, demoting discharging full bench trial, 756 F.Supp. 1244 (E.D.Mo.1991). Eighth Circuit remanded, (1992), we certiorari, 506 ----, 954, 122 111 (1993). II 5 Section 1964 provides relevant part: 6 "It shall be practice — 7 "(1) . discharge any individual, otherwise discriminate individual respect compensation, terms, conditions, privileges employment, such individual's ." 2000e-2(a). With goal "progressively sharpen[ing] inquiry elusive factual discrimination," (1981), our (1973), cases.1 case, said, must first establish, "prima facie" supra, Petitioners do challenge Court's minimal requirements (set out 802, 1824-1825) (1) black, (2) qualified (3) (4) open filled white man. F.Supp., 1249-1250. 8 scheme, "[e]stablishment effect creates employee." 1094. To establish "presumption" say predicate (here, case) produces "a conclusion absence explanation" discrimination). D. Louisell & Mueller, Federal Evidence 67, p. 536 (1977). Thus, places defendant rebut case—i.e., "producing evidence" t "for reason." U.S., "[T]he clearly set forth, through introduction admissible evidence," action. important note, however, although shifts defendant, "[t]he persuading remains plaintiff," 1093. regard operates like described Rules Evidence: 9 "In civil proceedings provided Congress rules, imposes party whom directed going meet presumption, sense risk nonpersuasion, throughout trial originally cast." 10 sustained actions: severity accumulation committed 1250. Our make clear point shifted irrelevant: "If carries production, raised rebutted," "drops case," 10, 1095, 10. "the fair opportunity demonstrate," own cross-examination defendant's witnesses, "that reason true decision," 256, was. retains "ultimate [trier fact] [he] victim discrimination." Ibid. 11 acting gave real respondent's demotion discharge. only supervisor disciplined subordinates; similar even more serious coworkers either disregarded treated leniently; manufactured final verbal confrontation provoke him. 1250-1251. determining factor demote dismiss him.2 short, "although [respondent] existence crusade terminate rather than personally motivated." 1252. 12 determination ground "[o]nce [petitioners'] pretextual, atter law." F.2d, 492. reasoned: 13 "Because defendants' discredited, defendants having offered legitimate other words, better silent, offering rebuttal inference basis race." 14 That so. By (whether not) thus themselves "better silent." 15 nature things, met (and legal discrimination) can involve credibility assessment. For burden-of-production necessarily precedes credibility-assessment stage. At close court asked issue determine. None if, presented, rational person have find facts constituting production—i.e., introduce true, permit there event, award under Procedure 50(a)(1) (in jury trials) 52(c) trials). See F. James G. Hazard, 7.9, 327 (3d ed. 1985); 70, 568. If reasonable minds could differ establishes remain, called answer.3 16 If, hand, succeeded carrying presumptions burdens—is longer relevant. resurrect later, after determined what "produced" credible, flies holding need persuade actually motivated reasons." fulfilled role forcing come some response, simply drops picture. 1094-1095. "production" (whatever effect) made, proceeds question: [him]" race, factfinder's put (particularly accompanied suspicion mendacity) may, together elements suffice show infer discrimination,4 correct noted that, rejection, "[n]o additional required," 493 (emphasis added). But Appeals' compels disregards ignores repeated persuasion." See, e.g., 716, 1482, 403 (1983) (citing 1095); Patterson McLean Credit Union, 491 164, 187, 109 2363, 2378, 105 132 (1989); Price Waterhouse Hopkins, 490 228, 245-246, 1775, 1788, 104 268 (1989) (plurality Brennan, joined Marshall, JJ.); 260, 1795-1796 (WHITE, concurring judgment); 270, 1801 (O'CONNOR, 286-288, 1809-1810 (KENNEDY, THE CHIEF JUSTICE dissenting); Cooper Reserve Bank Richmond, 467 867, 875, 2794, 2799, 81 718 (1984); cf. Wards Cove Packing Co., Inc. Atonio, 642, 659-660, 2115, 2125-2126, 733 668, 2130 (STEVENS, Watson Fort Worth Trust, 977, 986, 108 2777, 2784, 827 (1988). III 17 Only unfamiliar case-law upset dissent's alarum today sett ng "settled precedent," post, ____, "two decades stable Court," carefully crafted precedents old 20 years," "Congress [aware]" implicitly approved, Panic certainly break among courts appeals, whose divergent views concerning supposedly "stable Court" precisely prompted us take case—a divergence version precedent" cannot remotely considered "prevailing view." Compare, EEOC Flasher 986 1312, 1321 (CA10 1992) (finding pretext mandate illegal discrimination); Galbraith Northern Telecom, Inc., 944 275, 282-283 (CA6 1991) (same) (opinion Boggs, J.), cert. denied, 503 112 1497, 117 637 (1992); 283 Guy, result); Samuels Raytheon Corp., 934 388, 392 (CA1 (same); Holder City Raleigh, 867 823, 827-828 (CA4 1989) Benzies Illinois Mental Health Developmental Disabilities, 810 146, 148 (CA7) (dictum ), 483 1006, 107 3231, 97 737 (1987); Clark Huntsville Ed., 717 525, 529 (CA11 1983) Center, 487, 492-493 (case below) discrimination), granted, (1993); Tye Board Ed. Polaris Joint Vocational School Dist., 811 315, 320 (CA6) (same), 484 924, 285, 98 246 King Palmer, 250 U.S.App.D.C. 257, 778 878, 881 (1985) Duffy Wheeling Pittsburgh Steel 738 1393, 1395-1396 (CA3) 469 1087, 592, 83 702 Lopez Metropolitan Life Ins. 930 157, 161 (CA2) 116 185 (1991); Caban-Wheeler Elsea, 904 1549, 1554 1990) ); Thornbrough Columbus Greenville 760 633, 639-640, 646-647 (CA5 1985) ). mean answer accusations detail, examining cases, outset worth noting utter implausibility ever says held. 18 As described, renders fail refuse hire color, religion, sex, national origin." 2000e-2(a)(1). Here context now-permissible trials causes action) asserts proper assessment law: Assume 40% business' work force members particular minority group, group comprises 10% labor market. An applicant, who member applies opening minimally qualified, rejected hiring search fill continues. applicant files VII, before comes company's fired. 1824, interpretation company refusal (which try confirm mouth now antagonistic former employee), ury instructed incorrect, assess damages company, believe guilty disproportionate makeup "indirectly showing unworthy credence."5 Surely nothing short inescapable prior holdings (the pretend any) should assume created. 19 appropriate determines, according procedures, traditional practice, certain modes orders including initial rebuttable sort earlier represents. product lesser) amounts this, degree so high would, rebuttal, require verdict (for noncredible directed-verdict place, compel favor). Quite obviously, infinitely less demands. left statute, matter, (that contended), support, all, dicta opinions. those turn begrudgingly, since think generally undesirable, where issue, dissect sentences Reports though Code. principal relies Burdine. While statements read them bear meaning consistent interpretation, exception incompatible language case. describes situation obtains adducing follows: "Third, burden, prove d scrimination." takes proves false, wins. " shown both reason. 's allusions demonstrating "pretext," 258, 1096, reasonably understood refer previously pretext, i.e., "pretext discrimination."6 21 also level specificity." 1095. reduces false—if loses. "new specificity" (as believe) turns few generalized factors specific proofs rebuttals motivation parties introduced. 22 next sentence, "[p]lacing serves frame sufficient clarity demonstrate pretext." 255-256, thinks means remaining false. view "pretext" sentence addressing form substance burden: requirement "clearly forth" gives "full fair" opportunity. 23 A says: "[The plaintiff] decision. merges she "merger" discrimination" replaced mere "demonstrat[ing] decision." merger little fish swallows big one. reading false becomes part often considerably assists) greater enterprise 24 succeed [i.e., discrimination] directly likely indirectly credence. 804-805 [93 1825-1827]." agree one: problem is, contradicts inexplicable numerous statements, itself case-law—commencing very citation uses proposition. say, cited pages elsewhere, disprove just opposite: "[O]n retrial given competent presumptively valid coverup 805, 1826 "We insist whatever stated reality premised." 18, 1825, statement Burdine's assurance (indeed, holding) regarding persuasion: "The plaintiff." 1095.7 And lastly, explicit reliance, describing shifting burdens authorities forth classic earlier, Wigmore's Evidence, 1093-1094, nn. James' Hazard's Procedure, ibid., Maguire's Common Sense Law, Thayer's Preliminary Treatise light inconsistencies, here regarded inadvertence, extent disproof totally independent, auxiliary, intent. 25 sum, difficulty sentence; many portions incomprehensible deceptive. might Aikens. There mistaken, [is] vel non." 1481. Once "responds decide" it) "whether within VII." 714-715, stage, 715, 1482 (brackets internal quotation mar omitted). methodology 'never intended rigid, mechanized, ritualistic.' (quoting Furnco Construction Waters, 438 567, 577, 2943, 2949, 57 957). Rather, responded district needs response (internal marks "On state record proceeded directly, disputed questions litigation." 715-716, 1482. confirmation (rather contradiction it), quotes problematic passage her 'or credence.' characterizes party's believes." enough, dis employer; noteworthy joining wrote separate concurrence sole purpose saying asserts. Brennan. Marshall none refused join without judgment. Aikens meant. IV 26 turn, finally, respondents claim produce. What appears trouble anything view, rule adopted benefit employers law," "favo[r]" "exempting responsibility lies." Post, explain, way disbelieved. initially justification assuming repeatedly does) disbelieved perjurers liars. ibid. ("the lies"; lie"; "found evidence"; "lies"), ____ ("benefit lying"; "must "offering evidence"), ("employer "employer caught "rewarded falsehoods"), ("requires lie"). Even typically sworn assertion physical occurrence pitted occurrence, surely imprudent call (by evidence) disbelieved, perjurer liar. ordinarily rely employee—often relatively low-level employee—as central fact; employee's mind. good faith introduces testimony, testifying employee himself, liar testimony believed, absurd. 27 Undoubtedly (or least eir employees) lying. readily identify perjurers, extraordinary notion, "exempt lies" enter judgments plaintiffs! perjury; criminal remedies that. notion judgment-for-lying seen even-handed punishment vice, realizes how strangely selective is: free lie heart's content about applied job, long worked, made—indeed, everything except permitted absolutely losing deserves. major, sensible, blow fibbery. 28 argument based supposed lying modest "A unsuccessfully offers 'phony reason' logically overcome case] conduct." Brief 21; Amicus Curiae 11, 17-18. anomaly recognizes procedural device, designed production. books place (initially, least) truthful litigant makes all. fails complaint will, motion, suffer default deceitful avoided. Civ.Proc. 55(a). contest critical averments pleadings untruthful denials 12(c). submit affidavits creating genuine motion summary dismissal 56(e). framework, perjury purchase chance factfinder—though there, here, substantial risks, 56(g); 1621. 29 raises objection impressive mistakes basic procedure. holds further enquiry follows wide open, limited scope explanation." expected refute "reasons articulated employer, discerned factfinder." "be saddled tremendous disadvantage confront, defined task amorphous disproving possible lurking record." "Under scheme announced today, conceivable suggested however unrelated addressed [the plaintiff]." These imply "proffered explanation," "stated reasons," "articulated somehow exist apart record—in pleading, perhaps formal, nontestimonial made behalf factfinder. ("Your honor, pursuant hereby formally asserts, ere, incompetence employee.") Of course sets "through evidence." reasons" "lurking contemplate lie, succeeds injecting unarticulated actions." "lurking-in-the-record" problem, exists dissent. preliminary therefore suggested, vaguely, record) device represent satisfy Douglas—since refute. provision medias res, know offer. 30 sense. 31 contends litigation controversy explanations eliminates consideration alternative chose advance." 15. bear, contends, choices pretextual prevail." "therefore" problematic. action, present unpersuasive, obviously contrived, correct. answer, subject, course, appellate review—which remand erroneous" standard 52(a), see, Anderson Bessemer 470 564, 573-576, 1504, 1511-1513, 84 518 (1985). 32 argues "would particularly ill-advised" pronounce "just right VII" cases. 31. 102 1991, 1073, 1981a(c) (1988 ed., Supp. III) (providing suits). quite opposite true. Clarity requisite them, detailed findings available review. 33 34 reaffirm said Aikens: facing triers sensitive difficult. prohibitions contained reflect policy. seldom 'eyewitness' mental processes. reviewing treat differently fact. difficult applying devised govern 'the proof,' 252 [101 1093], deciding question." 35 reversed, remanded opinion. ordered. 37 STEVENS join, dissenting. 38 Twenty years ago, unanimously prescribed "sensible, orderly evaluate disparate-treatment giving opportunities litigate "in common experience 957 (1978). reaffirmed refined most notably another unanimous (1983); Furnco, supra. recent disruption Circuits, ante, abandons purpose, "to sharpen Ignoring contrary still proceed roam searching disprove. Because majority departs settled precedent substituting promises unfair unworkable, I respectfully 39 inexplicably casts summarized neatly Burdine: 40 "First, Second, articulate rejection. Third, 1093 (citations 41 three-step process implement, fashion, VII," "makes plain assure equality eliminate devices fostered stratified job environments citizens." 800, 1823. "Title tolerates subtle otherwise," 801, allow plaintiffs deal effectively revealed circumstantial evidence. ("There processes"). gained acceptance, "race, origin" 2000e-2, age Age Discrimination Employment 1967. Halsell Kimberly-Clark 683 289 1982), 459 1205, 1194, Lawyers' Committee al. Amici 3-4. outset, disparate treatment workplace provide agree, protected class; commander; terminated; applicant.1 491, 1992). case" note indeed Although, contexts, requires raise satisfaction 1093, 7. doing so, "eliminat[ed] firing: unqualified available. Given assumption "people act arbitrary manner, underlying especially business setting," explained implies "because presume employer's] acts, unexplained, impermissible factors." 2949-2950; 43 mandatory Although until respond lose. "[I]f 1094; circumstances, presumed must, therefore, render plaintiff") original). acted too embarrassed reveal, discover, 44 Obviously, bar coming stage actions, lack qualifications exhaust explain consider explanations, employers' autonomy curtailed far beyond needed rectify identified Congress. Cf. 577-578, 2950 (Title "does duty adopt procedure maximizes employees"). On equally utterly impractical saddle victims direct intent eliminating entire universe reconciled competing interests sensible "articulate," "legitimate, reason[s]" 1824; Proof catalyst obligating step used Hicks: infractions allegedly committed. 491. 45 emphasizes obligation ____; meets entitling case." 10; true,2 function neglected majority, "burden production" choose issues resolved investing choice chooses binds well tell done, specific," articulated, employer.3 1096; 9, ("An articulation admitted suffice"). 46 battleground During final, enquiry, true; rather, pretextual.4 challenged stand." 807, 1827. prompt remedy."5 Or, drives home explaining ways: "either credence."7 Ibid.; 717-718, 1482-1483 (BLACKMUN, concurring); 287-289, 1810-1811, dissenting) (discussing methods" relying BLACKMUN's credence" indicates narrowed pretextual.8 carried "unworthy credence," properly judgment.9 47 decides abandon structure trying plaintiffs, unworkable forgiving court. majority's meeting relevant." Ante, Whereas specificity," explanation.10 Despite assiduous effort reinterpret precedents, today's stems flat misreading compelling limiting afforded 1096 omitted); 1095 demonstrate" pretext); 5, 1482; 578, 2950; 1825-1826. plaintiff, opportunity" factfinder, transforms notice promote fairness misleading potentially useless ritual. 48 greatly disfavors luck repeats truism burden" burden. telling credence." 1095; concurring). possibility calls indirect crucial success claims, simple announce motive. yet, lacking record. "disprove 49 acknowledge vaguely while "[c]larity proof," conflicting signals passage, states "compe[l] more, "will implicit keeping Hicks's winning alive done addition supports extreme conclusion, example, twice "both addition, summing up "[i]t disbelieve employer." "pretext-plus" approach head, result Carter Duncan-Huggins, Ltd., 234 126, 727 1225, 1245 (1984) (Scalia, ("[I]n get [the] ") Lanctot, Defendant Lies Plaintiff Loses: Fallacy "Pretext-Plus" Cases, Hastings L.J. (1991) (criticizing approach). 50 moreover, holding, why "unpersuasive, contrived," falls short. (though presumption) pretext. Such merely strengthened showing, th "common experience" tells "more not" lies cover illegality 2949-2950. Unless Douglas's command limit rendered meaningless, look keep digging credence, rejects limited, albeit manner chosen employer. throwing favoring exempting lies.11 ones shameful wish conceal them. One understand human frailty natural desire it, dispense getting 51 favor, actual potential litigants stand sharply. workers sue, uncertainties legislative adopting frustrated. nevertheless press forward, wasted time, effort, money concerned. losing. Since win unstated reason, presumably includes question" unlimited reasons. promise tedious affairs. contrary, reference "vaguely" careful anticipate side arise evidentiary presentation. pretrial discovery become wide-ranging (if afford wider f cts trial. pre-trial discovery, increased expense delay defendants, judiciary. 52 unfairness impracticality, remarkable results. Contrary "some reason" firing decisions, 2949-2950 original), assumes unable discover employers, faced claims decision,12 concludes 3. leads perverse decisions fire employees lying,13 defend successfully hope conclude unknown structuring prevail. 53 destroys years, attempts deflect, confront. opinions refining consist primarily dicta, bearing ignored. readiness disclaim pronouncements devalues go minimum necessary settle narrow dispute frameworks products dicta. Courts lawsuits federal statutes casually structures adopted. 54 naturally declines entirely dismissing directives interpreting area, acknowledging read, instance declares my "utter[ly] implausib[le]," imputing "beneath contempt," unlikely shared Solicitor General Equal Opportunity Commission, charged implementing enforcing related statutes, 1-2, mention and, count, half discussed (some, albeit, dicta). surprise. above, us, behoove depart 55 attempt neutralize presented today. rest runs difficulty, 'either ( uoting 1095). quoted approvingly, projects latter "problematic," arguing care "problem." problems directs "decide supplied). (shown indirectly), flatly bars third explanation, never ruling seeks projecting past abandonment occurs 56 turning back decisions. "Considerations stare decisis area statutory unlike constitutional power implicated, alter done." 172-173, 2370, (1989). unaware ready interpretations finds mistaken. 1071. indicate mistaken 58 enhancement wrought exemplified denied opportunity, one, termination, personal animosity supervisor, recognize motivated) took; adduced [to him] 1244, 1252 (EDMo.1991). hardly surprising crusade, discharge, difficulties himself Hicks. App. 46. troubled remands review conclusions erroneous, hypothesized months Whether wins loses remand, lose possess prescience resources employ. 59 driven concern ashamed honest court, happen intent, syllabus constitutes prepared Reporter Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Lumber 200 321, 337, 282, 287, L.Ed. 499. purposeful-discrimination element Mary's. 490-491 (1992). Neither challenges proposition, fully applicable racial-discrimination-in-employment 1983. 186, 2377-2378, (applying 1981). Various considerations led blacks sat board recommended disciplining respondent, disciplined, number constant." finder answers affirmatively—if supported evidence—it (1981); pp. 568-569 failing felt (because uncontested) technically accurate describe sequence rejection." real-life feels "burden" proved, knows inadequate convince coercion "arranging confusion-producing analysis, inconsistent reason," infra, "it employer," here) (not unrealistic) hypothetical, assert "personnel records" resort hire. every keeps people personnel, (i.e., respects better) seems highly fanciful—or sake American is. fundamentally, misses point. exist, mockery justice believes probably "true" excluded jury's consideration. concluding (relied dissent, ____) There, viz., prohibited [Title VII]," 804, 1825. leaves sure: beneath contempt less, play word-games concept "leaving parity credible alibi persuasion, Government credible. following below, mentions male. opinion); characteristics someone replace material, Cumpiano Banco Santander Puerto Rico, 902 148, 154-155 (identity replacement relevant). "fl[y] "resurrect" argue contrary. 301). resurrected (everyone agrees not), wrong suggests "apart mentioned repeat Supra, record," suggests, "clear 1096. Accordingly, worry waiting end No identifying clarified aspect "whether, treatment, existed." 250, 1091. halfhearted rewrite passages appear does. 6. seriously change diction altered difference, sloppy summarizing Earlier "as 1825; justify rewriting summary). focus show, plaintiff's] pretext," simple. choosing important, consistent, sloppy. nails down satisfies deserve puts reading" contradicted indicates, subsequently admits, me reasonable" interpret harmony with, to, centers repudiating specific, concrete guidance decade, replacing wherever efforts intertwined, specifically discrimination": method or" and": "[A] 'a discrimination' shorthand phrase ("pretext discrimination"), discovers odds rewrites "discovery." "[f]amiliar case-law," persuaded strategy. sole, determinative, indicated discussion various types reverse "did [challenged] 2950, reminder "evidence introduced "inferences drawn therefrom [employer's] pretextual," foregoing analysis combinations proof. events ex mple, decided showing. once. situation, wishes attack wants approach, 1481-1482, 1482), discovered anywhere motivation. chides referring offer "liars," perjurers. "absurd" agent corporation. Factfinders constantly conclude, lie. label "perjury," concept, jumping gun, term. unrealistically concerned rare easily Most companies, records, records 803(6) Evidence. Martin Funtime, 963 110, 115-116 1992); Alton Packaging 901 920, 925-926 1990). discovering by, interviewing co-workers, policies. rewards decide, atypical invent investigate. hypothetical disproportionately percentage untrue solely "antagonistic employee," almost had, assumed. "mockery justice" recovery presents "compelling nondiscrimination "is 'true' one." 5. drawing truth ab e avoid charge general behavior demonstrably meritorious. untruth, untruth whopper, else compelling. mockery. nothing. merits, subjecting damages, prevailing attorney's fees, including, presumably, fees extra time spent 2000e-5(k) "reasonable fee" party" action). walk away rewarded falsehoods.

Category: 1