Document: 439 U.S. 24 99 S.Ct. 295 58 L.Ed.2d 216 BOARD OF TRUSTEES KEENE STATE COLLEGE et al.v.Christine M. SWEENEY. No. 77-1792. Nov. 13, 1978. PER CURIAM. 1 The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. In Furnco Construction Co. v. Waters, 438 567, 98 2943, 57 957 (1978), we stated that "[t]o dispel the adverse inference from prima facie showing under McDonnell Douglas employer need only 'articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason employee's rejection.' " Id., at 578, S.Ct., 2950, quoting Corp. Green, 411 792, 802, 93 1817, 1824, 36 668 (1973). We in plaintiff "must . be afforded fair opportunity to show [the employer's] plaintiff's] rejection was fact pretext." 804, 1825. Court Appeals present case, however, referring Douglas, "in requiring defendant prove absence discriminatory motive, Supreme placed burden squarely on party with greater access such evidence." 569 F.2d 169, 177 (CA1 1978) (emphasis added).1 2 While words as "articulate," "show," and "prove," may have more or less similar meanings depending upon context which they are used, think there significant distinction between merely "articulat[ing] reason" "prov[ing] motive." By reaffirming emphasizing analysis supra, made it clear former will suffice meet case discrimination. Because appears imposed heavier than warrants, its judgment vacated remanded reconsideration light Furnco, 2950.2 3 It so ordered. 4 Mr. Justice STEVENS, whom BRENNAN, STEWART, MARSHALL join, dissenting. 5 Whenever this grants vacates court appeals order allow reconsider decision an intervening Court, acting merits. Such action always imposes additional circuit judges who—more any other segment federal judiciary—are struggling desperately keep afloat flood litigation. For reason, should not taken unless has shed new law which, if had been available time appeals' decision, might led different result. 6 Court's implies recent opinion 957, change explained 668. When I joined opinion, detected no am still unable discern one. both cases, clearly when complainant Title VII trial establishes discrimination, "the shifts proving he based his employment legitimate consideration, illegitimate one race."1 7 Appeals' statement parties' respective burdens wholly faithful teachings Douglas. here stated: 8 "As understand those cases [McDonnell Teamsters United States, 431 324], bears initial presenting evidence sufficient establish then rebut by accounted actions. If rebuttal successful, must mere pretext ultimate persuasion issue discrimination remains plaintiff, who convince preponderance she victim discrimination." added). 9 This virtually parrots statements Furnco. Nonetheless, ground warrants." Ante, 25. As sole basis conclusion, relies drawn first "between 'articulat[ing] reason' 'prov[ing] motive.' 25.2 novel two parts, illusory were unequivocally rejected itself. 10 First purported difference "articulating" "proving" motivation. Second affirming motive negating motive. 11 With respect point, noted employer's "prov[e] consideration."3 Indeed, paragraph cited earlier, "prove" "articulate" used interchangeably,4 properly so. descriptive defendant's context. litigation way can adducing explains what done; executive takes witness stand litigant speaks thereby reasons. intends authorize method articulating factual defense without proof, surely explain is. 12 second part imaginative also shows accounts action, simultaneously demonstrating motivated factor race. explicitly recognized equivalence defined "that race."5 Whether phrased affirmative negative, question involves identification real decision. On question—as all these make perfectly clear—it producing reasons employer; persuasion, recognized, plaintiff. 13 short, concluding erred case—either benefit today therefore needlessly work already considered correctly applied rule directs them reapply. did dissent quotes, post, 27, quoted text above. These simply contradict another. above would entirely superfluous third step Furnco-McDonnell analysis, since place stage pretext, rather contrary proof employee step. our remand warranted because determine conflicting standards reviewing District implication standards. We, course, intimate view correct result proper test case. quite agree satisfied "explains done" "produc[es] reasons." Post, 28-29. But petitioners produce support their explanation refusing promote respondent during years question. See F.2d, 172-173, 178; App. Pet. Cert. B-2 B-24. held met proffered "rebut" "disprove" respondent's "prove 177-179; see B-25. holding further belief here, require. language following : "When understood apparent To that, pursued course enable him achieve own business goal consider most applications. prohibits having force selected proscribed practice, but does impose duty adopt hiring procedure maximizes minority employees. U.S., 577-578, 2950 original). comparable passage reads follows: "The shift articulate rejection. attempt instant detail every matter fairly could reasonable refusal hire. Here petitioner assigned participation unlawful conduct against cause suffices discharge petitioner's 802-803, 1824. suggests "further support" derived "holding" "petitioners 'rebut' 'disprove' 177-179." 25-26 n. 2. actual court's finding sex impeded plaintiff's promotion erroneous." 179 1978). reached conclusion considering presented parties whether offered "sufficient sustain district findings" counter employer. Ibid. determinations courts entitled strong presumption validity. 577, (quoted n.1, supra; emphasis state petitioners' anything; rather, shifted defendants "show" action. 1, supra. 2950.

Category: 1