Opinion ID: 112901
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: We reaffirm today what we said in Aikens:

Text: [T]he question facing triers of fact in discrimination cases is both sensitive and difficult. The prohibitions against discrimination contained in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 reflect an important national policy. There will seldom be `eyewitness' testimony as to the employer's mental processes. But none of this means that trial courts or reviewing courts should treat discrimination differently from other ultimate questions of fact. Nor should they make their inquiry even more difficult by applying legal rules which were devised to govern `the basic allocation of burdens and order of presentation of proof,' Burdine, 450 U. S., at 252, in deciding this ultimate question. 460 U. S., at 716. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered.