Document: 546 U.S. ___ (2006) ANTHONY ASH, ET AL. v. TYSON FOODS, INC. No. 05-379. Supreme Court of United States. Decided February 21, 2006. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. PER CURIAM. Petitioners Anthony Ash and John Hithon were superintendents at a poultry plant owned operated by respondent Tyson Foods, Inc. Petitioners, who are African-American, sought promotions to fill two open shift manager positions, but white males selected instead. Alleging that had discriminated on account race, petitioners sued under Rev. Stat. §1977, 42 C. §1981, Title VII the Civil Rights Act 1964, 78 253, as amended, §2000e et seq. A trial proceeded in States District for Northern Alabama. At close plaintiffs' evidence, moved judgment matter law, see Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 50(a). The denied motion, jury found petitioners, awarding compensatory punitive damages. employer renewed its motion 50(b). granted and, alternative, ordered new both plaintiffs 50(c). App. Pet. Cert. 35a; generally Unitherm Food Systems, Swift-Eckrich, Inc., U. S. ___, (slip op., 4-11) (discussing 50). Appeals Eleventh Circuit affirmed part reversed part. 129 Appx. 529, 536 (2005) (per curiam). As Ash, court grant 50(b) deeming evidence insufficient show pretext (and thus unlawful discrimination) burden-shifting framework set forth McDonnell Douglas Corp. Green, 411 792 (1973). Appx., 533-534. Hithon, ruling, finding there was enough go jury. court, however, Court's alternative remedy 50(c), holding supported neither decision damages nor amount award, did not abuse discretion ordering trial. Id., 536. Appeals, rulings it affirmed, may be correct final analysis. In course opinion, erred respects, requiring now vacated case remanded further consideration. First, Tyson's manager, made disputed hiring decisions, referred some occasions each "boy." argued this discriminatory animus. disagreed, "[w]hile use `boy' when modified racial classification like `black' or `white' is intent, alone discrimination." 533 (citation omitted). Although true word will always animus, does follow term, standing alone, benign. speaker's meaning depend various factors including context, inflection, tone voice, local custom, historical usage. Insofar held modifiers qualifications necessary all instances render term probative bias, court's erroneous. Second, articulating standard determining whether asserted non-discriminatory reasons decisions pretextual. introduced their superior those successful applicants. (Part employer's defense with openings performance problems already worked supervisory capacity.) petitioners' insufficient, cited one earlier precedents stated: "Pretext can established through comparing only `the disparity so apparent virtually jump off page slap you face.'" Ibid. (quoting Cooper Southern Co., 390 F.3d 695, 732 (CA11 2004)). Under suffice, least circumstances, pretext. See Patterson McLean Credit Union, 491 164, 187-188 (1989) (indicating plaintiff "might seek demonstrate respondent's claim have promoted better qualified applicant pretextual showing she fact than person chosen position"), superseded other grounds §1981(b); Texas Dept. Community Affairs Burdine, 450 248, 259 (1981) ("The think misjudged applicants itself expose him liability, although pretexts discrimination"); cf. Reeves Sanderson Plumbing Products, 530 133, 148 (2000) ("[A] plaintiff's prima facie case, combined sufficient find justification false, permit trier conclude unlawfully discriminated"). visual image words jumping (presumably court) face unhelpful imprecise an elaboration inferring from qualifications. Federal courts, here, articulated standards, see, e.g., Cooper, supra, (noting "disparities must such weight significance no reasonable person, exercise impartial judgment, could candidate over job question" (internal quotation marks omitted)); Raad Fairbanks North Star Borough School Dist., 323 1185, 1194 (CA9 2003) (holding establish where "`clearly superior'" applicant); Aka Washington Hospital Center, 156 1284, 1294 (CADC 1998) (en banc) (concluding factfinder infer if "a would significantly job"), statement suggesting 533. This occasion define more precisely what should govern claims based Today's decision, furthermore, read hold necessarily showed concluded otherwise. It suffices say here formulation test ensure courts reach consistent results. determine first instance aspects determined been mistaken essential holding. On these premises, certiorari granted, vacated, proceedings opinion. ordered.

Category: 1