Document: 411 U.S. 792 93 S.Ct. 1817 36 L.Ed.2d 668 McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORPORATION, Petitioner,v.Percy GREEN. No. 72—490. Argued March 28, 1973. Decided May 14, Syllabus Respondent, a black civil rights activist, engaged in disruptive and illegal activity against petitioner as part of his protest that discharge an employee petitioner's the firm's general hiring practices were racially motivated. When petitioner, who subsequently advertised for qualified personnel, rejected respondent's re-employment application on ground conduct, respondent filed complaint with Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charging violation Title VII Civil Rights Act 1964. The EEOC found there was reasonable cause to believe rejection violated § 704(a) Act, which forbids discrimination applicants or employees attempting correct allegedly discriminatory employment conditions, but made no finding allegation had also 703(a) (1), prohibits any decision. Following unsuccessful conciliation efforts, brought suit District Court, ruled not protected by dismissed 703(a)(1) claim because respect thereto. Court Appeals affirmed ruling, reversed 703(a)(1), holding determination jurisdictional prerequisite claiming provision federal court. Held: 1. A complainant's right bring under 1964 is confined charges has reasonable-cause finding, Court's error contrary harmless since issues raised identical those dismissal former charge may have prejudiced efforts at trial. Pp. 798—800. 2. In private, non-class-action racial discrimination, complainant burden establishing prima facie case, he can satisfy showing (i) belongs minority; (ii) applied job employer trying fill; (iii) though qualified, rejected; (iv) thereafter continued seek qualifications. P. 802. 3. Here, Appeals, correctly proved erred discharged its proof rebuttal stated reason rehiring refusal based activity. But remand must be afforded fair opportunity proving just pretext decision, such whites engaging similar retained hired petitioner. Other evidence relevant, depending circumstances, could include facts discriminated when followed policy toward Minority employees. 802—805. 8 Cir., 463 F.2d 337, vacated remanded. Veryl L. Riddle, St. Louis, Mo., Louis Gilden, respondent. Mr. Justice POWELL delivered opinion Court. 1 case before us raises significant questions proper order nature actions 1964, 78 Stat. 253, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq. 2 Petitioner, McDonnell Douglas Corp., aerospace aircraft manufacturer headquartered Missouri, where it employs over 30,000 people. citizen worked mechanic laboratory technician from 1956 until August 19641 laid off course reduction work force. 3 long-time activist movement, protested vigorously motivated.2 As this protest, other members Congress Racial Equality illegally stalled their cars main roads leading plant purpose blocking access time morning shift change. Judge described plan for, participation in, 'stall-in' follows: 4 '(F)ive teams, each consisting four would 'tie up' five into rush hour. drivers instructed line up next completely intersections roads. stop cars, turn engines, pull emergency brake, raise all windows, lock doors, remain police arrived. position one 5 'Acting 'stall in' plan, plaintiff (respondent present action) drove car onto Brown Road, road, approximately 7:00 a.m., start Plaintiff aware traffic problems result. He stopped intent block traffic. arrived shortly requested move car. refused voluntarily. Plaintiff's towed away police, arrested obstructing pleaded guilty fined.' 318 F.Supp. 846. 6 On July 2, 1965, 'lock-in' took place wherein chain padlock placed front door building prevent occupants, certain employees, leaving. Though apparently knew beforehand 'lock-in,' full extent involvement remains uncertain.3 7 Some three weeks following 25, publicly mechanics, trade, promptly re-employment. Petitioner turned down respondent, basing 'lock-in.' Shortly thereafter, formal Commission, rehire him race persistent §§ 2000e—2(a)(1) 2000e—3(a).4 section generally decision while latter conditions employment. bias did find refusing After unsuccess-fully attempted conciliate dispute, advised 1968, institute action court within 30 days. 9 April 15, action, initially and, amended complaint, well.5 299 1100, procedures failed make been committed. solely demonstrations legitimate activities. concluded nothing 704 'such employed 'lock demonstrations.' F.Supp., 850. 10 appeal, Eighth Circuit unlawful protests activities 704(a),6 relating practices, prior raising ordered remanded trial 703(a)(1). 11 remanding, set forth standards govern consideration claim. majority noted established discrimination; rested 'subjective' criteria carried little weight rebutting that, might indicate lack responsible attitude performing employer, should given demonstrate reasons mere pretext.7 clarify governing disposition challenging we granted certiorari, 409 1036, 522, 34 485 (1972). 12 * We agree absence cannot bar appropriate dismissing Respondent satisfied prerequisites filing timely receiving acting upon Commission's statutory notice sue, 2000e—5(a) 2000e—5(e). does restrict sue findings cause, will engraft statute requirement inhibit review claims courts. itself consider 'reasonable cause' providing immunity court, 29 CFR 1601.30, courts appeal held view large volume complaints nonadversary character many proceedings, 'court are de novo proceedings . 'no lawsuit case.' Robinson v. Lorillard 444 791, 800 (CA4 1971); Beverly Lone Star Lead Construction 437 1136 (CA,5 Flowers Local 6, Laborers International Union North America, 431 205 (CA7 1970); Fekete United States Steel 424 331 (CA 1970). 13 argues, below, sustained prejudice court's erroneous ruling fact issue re-employ 'was tried thoroughly' lasting days 'at least 80%' 'race.'8 therefore, requests judgment below instructions affirmed.9 error. It clear contentions involved relates applicant account protests, deals broader centrally important question whether reason, made. Moreover, accorded prepare strategy knowledge properly Court.10 Accordingly, consistent views below. II 14 critical concerns allocation non-class discrimination. language makes plain assure equality opportunities eliminate devices fostered stratified environments disadvantage minority citizens. Griggs Duke Power Co., 401 424, 429, 91 849, 852, 28 158 (1971); Castro Beecher, 459 725 (CA1 1972); Chance Board Examiners, 458 1167 (CA2 Quarles Philip Morris, Inc., 279 505 (ED Va.1968). Griggs, supra: 15 'Congress intend VII, however, guarantee every person regardless short, command simply formerly subject member group. Discriminatory preference group, majority, precisely only what proscribed. 16 What required removal artificial, arbitrary, unnecessary barriers operate invidiously discriminate basis impermissible classification.' Id., U.S., 430—431, S.Ct., 853. 17 There societal well personal interests both sides equation. broad, overriding interest, shared employee, consumer, efficient trustworthy workmanship assured through neutral personnel decisions. implementation decisions, abundantly tolerates subtle otherwise. 18 denied 'because activities' color.'11 kind, asserting failure justified conduct it. Thus, framed opposing factual contentions. two opinions several judges attempted, notable harmony, state applicable rules how shifts making case.12 now address problem. 19 carry initial This done seeking applicants; despite qualifications, after rejection, remained open persons qualifications.13 instant case. 353. sought do so rejection. moreover, dispute qualifications14 acknowledges past performance employ 'satisfactory.'15 20 then articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory employee's need attempt detail matter fairly recognized hire. Here assigned think suffices stage meet 21 intimated, rather than objective criterion 'carr[ies] discrimination,' F.2d, 343. among statements caused dissenting judge read taking 'the acts Green committed legally entitle refuse hire him, even motivation .' 355. Regardless intended import opinion, seriously underestimated entitled. admittedly taken carefully planned 'stall-in,' designed tie egress peak hour.16 Nothing compels absolve deliberate, it.17 upholding, National Labor Relations seized forcibly employer's factory buildings sit-down strike, pertinently: 22 'We unable conclude compel employers retain conduct,—to invest go strike trespass violence property Apart constitutional validity enactment sort, enough say legislative intention definite unmistakable expression.' NLRB Fansteel 306 240, 255, 59 490, 496, 83 L.Ed. 627 (1939). 23 Petitioner's thus inquiry end here. While not, without more, neither permit use sort prohibited remand, must, recognized, show pretext. Especially relevant white comparable seriousness nevertheless rehired. justifiably unlawful, it, if alike races. 24 includes treatment during term employment; reaction, any, activities; practice employment.18 point, statistics helpful conformed pattern blacks. Jones Lee Way Motor Freight, 245 (CA10 Blumrosen, Strangers Paradise: Concept Discrimination, 71 Mich.L.Rev. 59, 91—94 (1972).19 retrial competent presumptively valid coverup 25 appeared rely supra, stated: 'If operates exclude Negroes shown related performance, prohibited.' 431, 853, 158.20 differs respects. dealt standardized testing which, however face, operated blacks capable effectively desired positions. rightly concerned childhood deficiencies education background citizens, resulting forces beyond control, allowed cumulative invidious citizens remainder lives. 430, appears different clothing. act very whom seeks And exclusion device overstates necessary sweeping disqualification record behavior, remote, insubstantial, unrelated applicant's qualifications employee. assertedly thought kind 'artificial, employment' remove. 853.21 III 26 sum, pursue (1). If substantially accord successfully rebutted matter. retrial, application. finds, prompt remedy. stand. 27 hereby reconsideration accordance opinion. So ordered. Remanded. His these years continuous except months service military. 'filed President's Rights, Department, Department Navy, Defense Missouri Human Rights.' 337 (8 1972). occurred picketing demonstration ACTION, organization, entrance downtown office housed offices working time. ingress egress. Although chairman ACTION time, staged participated indeed picket building, told advance 'that planning door,' 'approved of' chaining door, personally actual arrested. App. 132—133. 'not support conclusion 'actively cooperated' doors demonstration.' 341. See concurring Lay. 344. Johnsen, dissent, agreed 'chaining padlocking (were) out planned, (and that) approval authorization.' 348. admitted resolve contradictory surrounding Section 2000e—2(a) pertinent provides: 'It shall fail individual, otherwise individual compensation, terms, privileges employment, individual's race, color, religion, sex, national origin ..' 2000e—3(a), opposed subchapter contested legality barred limitations. challenge rulings issue. All references Part V revised 352, superseded proof. 337. Tr. Oral Arg. 11. Brief 40. discuss discovery statistical materials charged 'involvement activities.' 7, 8. 20, 1969, broadened denial 27. original panel heard 338; Lay, id., 344; first part, 346; 352; supplemental dissent petition rehearing en banc evenly divided Appeals. necessarily vary cases, specification above differing situations. note used test Where instituted tests exclusionary effect applicants, requirements 'shown bear demonstrable relationship successful jobs' they used, (1971). 3; injury damage resulted due 'solely law enforcement officials obtained plaintiff's (here respondent's) scene remove highway.' 846, 851. directed specifically decide here whether, particular justification factors were, indeed, considered 704(a), 'defendant's petitioner's) motivated intimate overturned do, insist whatever reality premised. may, example, determine, (racial) composition defendant's labor force reflective restrictive practices.' 92. caution determinations, helpful, themselves controlling individualized particularly presence justifiable rehire. Bethlehem 312 977, 992 (WDNY 1970), modified, 446 652 1971). n. 19, 93. 352. is, course, predictive evaluation, resistant empirical proof, 'an prospective employer.' harmful potential accompanying inconvenience said lacked rational business justification. elsewhere: 'Past relate fitness; loyalty future trust.' Garner Public Works Los Angeles, 341 716, 720, 909, 912, 95 1317 (1951).

Category: 1