Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-1371.pdf
Page Number: 81.0

Cite as:  561 U. S. ____ (2010) 

33 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

proffered  reason  for  its  employment  decision  support  a 
finding of pretext.”  Kobrin v. University of Minnesota, 34 
F. 3d 698, 703 (CA8 1994); see also, e.g., Aragon v. Repub-
lic  Silver  State  Disposal  Inc.,  292  F. 3d  654,  661  (CA9 
2002);  Cicero  v.  Borg-Warner  Automotive,  Inc.,  280  F. 3d 
579, 592 (CA6 2001). 

Timing.  The  timing  of  Hastings’  revelation  of  its  new 
policies  closely  tracks  the  law  school’s  litigation  posture. 
When  Hastings  denied  CLS  registration,  it  cited  only  the
Nondiscrimination  Policy.    Later,  after  CLS  alleged  that
the  Nondiscrimination  Policy  discriminated  against  reli-
gious  groups,  Hastings  unveiled  its  accept-all-comers
policy.  Then, after we granted certiorari and CLS’s open-
ing brief challenged the constitutionality—and the plausi-
bility—of  the  accept-all-comers  policy,  Hastings  disclosed 
a  new  policy.    As  is  true  in  the  employment  context, 
“[w]hen the justification for an adverse . . . action changes 
during  litigation,  that  inconsistency  raises  an  issue 
whether  the  proffered  reason  truly  motivated  the  defen-
dant’s decision.”  Cicero, supra, at 592. 

Lack  of  documentation.  When  an  employer  has  a  writ-
ten  policy  and  then  relies  on  a  rule  for  which  there  is  no 
written  documentation,  that  deviation  may  support  an
inference of pretext.  See, e.g., Diaz v. Eagle Produce Ltd. 
Partnership,  521  F. 3d  1201,  1214  (CA9  2008);  Rudin  v. 
Lincoln Land Community College, 420 F. 3d 712, 727 (CA7 
2005); Machinchick v. PB Power, Inc., 398 F. 3d 345, 354, 
n. 29 (CA5 2005); Russell v. TG Missouri Corp., 340 F. 3d 
735,  746  (CA8  2003);  Mohammed  v.  Callaway,  698  F. 2d 
395, 399–400, 401 (CA10 1983). 

Here,  Hastings  claims  that  it  has  had  an  accept-all-
comers policy since 1990, but it has not produced a single 
written  document  memorializing  that  policy.  Nor  has  it 
cited a single occasion prior to the dean’s deposition when 
this  putative  policy  was  orally  disclosed  to  either  student 
groups  interested  in  applying  for  registration  or  to  the