Document: 450 U.S. 248 101 S.Ct. 1089 67 L.Ed.2d 207 TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, Petitioner,v.Joyce Ann BURDINE. No. 79-1764. Argued Dec. 9, 1980. Decided March 4, 1981. Syllabus Respondent filed suit in Federal District Court, alleging, inter alia, that her termination of employment with petitioner was predicated on gender discrimination violation Title VII the Civil Rights Act 1964. The Court found testimony for sufficiently had rebutted respondent's allegation decision to terminate employment. Appeals reversed this finding, holding defendant a case bears burden proving by preponderance evidence existence legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons action and also must prove objective those hired were better qualified plaintiff, did not carry either these burdens. Held: When plaintiff has proved prima facie discrimination, only explaining clearly its actions. Pp. 252-260. (a) As set forth McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 792, 93 1817, 36 668, basic allocation burdens order presentation proof case, is as follows. First, discrimination. Second, if succeeds shifts "to articulate some reason employee's rejection." Id., at 802, S.Ct., 1824. third, should burden, then have an opportunity legitimate offered true reasons, but pretext need persuade court it actually motivated proffered sufficient defendant's raises genuine issue fact whether discriminated against plaintiff. To accomplish this, forth, through introduction admissible evidence, plaintiff's rejection. 252-256. (b) erred requiring terminating respondent. By doing required much more than Douglas, supra, progeny: placed persuading convincing, preferring chosen applicant above Limiting evidentiary obligation production will unduly hinder 256-258. (c) person It task demonstrate similarly situated employees treated equally, Appeals' rule would require employer show qualifications inferior selected, cannot, would, effect, conclude discriminated. views can be read hire minority or female whenever person's equal white male applicant. But does obligate accord preference. Rather, discretion choose among equally candidates, provided based upon unlawful criteria. 258-259. 608 F.2d 563, vacated remanded. Gregory Wilson, Austin, Tex., petitioner, pro hac vice, special leave Court. Hubert L. Gill, Justice POWELL delivered opinion 1 This requires us address again nature brought under 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. narrow question presented whether, after discriminatory treatment, challenged existed. 2 * Petitioner, Texas Department Community Affairs (TDCA), respondent, female, January 1972, position accounting clerk Public Service Careers Division (PSC). PSC training opportunities public sector unskilled workers. hired, respondent possessed several years' experience training. She promoted Field Services Coordinator July 1972. Her supervisor resigned November year, assigned additional duties. Although she applied supervisor's Project Director, remained vacant six months. 3 funded completely United States Labor. seriously concerned about inefficiencies PSC.1 In February 1973, notified Executive Director TDCA, B. R. Fuller, following month. TDCA officials, assisted persuaded continue funding program, conditioned PSC's reforming operations. Among agreed conditions appointment permanent complete reorganization staff.2 4 After consulting personnel within Fuller from another division agency Director. reducing staff, he fired along two other employees, retained male, Walz, professional employee division. undisputed maintained application requested remain TDCA. soon rehired agency. received exact salary paid PSC, subsequent promotions kept responsibility commensurate what been appointed 5 Western Texas. alleged failure promote VII. bench trial, held neither relied decisions necessitated commands Labor consultation trusted advisers evaluation relative individuals involved. He testified three terminated work well together, thought eliminating problem improve efficiency. accepted explanation rational and, no prompted 6 Fifth Circuit part. 563 (1979). Court's "implicit finding" erroneous. Accordingly, affirmed finding when promoted. Appeals, however, Fuller's PSC. reaffirmed previously announced It, therefore, judgment remanded computation backpay.3 Because borne conflicts interpretations our precedents adopted Courts Appeals,4 we granted certiorari. 447 920, 100 3009, 65 1112 (1980). We now vacate Circuit's remand correct standard. II 7 668 (1973), alleging treatment.5 Third, 804, 1825. 8 understood light ultimate intermediate trier intentionally remains all times See Board Trustees Keene State College Sweeney, 439 24, 25, n. 2, 99 295, 296, 58 216 (1978); id., 29, 297 (STEVENS, J., dissenting). generally 9 J. Wigmore, Evidence 2489 (3d ed. 1940) (the persuasion "never shifts"). serves bring litigants expeditiously fairly question. establishing disparate treatment onerous. available which qualified, rejected circumstances give rise inference discrimination.6 important function litigation: eliminates most common Teamsters States, 431 324, 358, 44, 97 1843, 1866, 52 396 (1977). explained Furnco Construction Waters, 438 567, 577, 98 2943, 2949, 57 957 (1978), "raises because presume acts, otherwise unexplained, are likely consideration impermissible factors." Establishment effect creates presumption unlawfully employee. If believes silent face presumption, enter case.7 10 defendant, rebut producing rejected, someone else preferred, reason. reasons. 296. plaintiff.8 rejection.9 legally justify defendant. carries production, raised rebutted,10 factual inquiry proceeds new level specificity. Placing thus simultaneously meet presenting frame clarity so full fair pretext. sufficiency evaluated extent fulfills functions. 11 retains persuasion. decision. merges victim intentional may succeed directly indirectly showing employer's unworthy credence. U.S., 804-805, 1825-1826. III 12 reversing discharge unrelated sex, adhered rules developed elaborate proof. F.2d, 567. Turner Instruments, Inc., 555 1251, 1255 (CA5 1977). satisfy "must . somehow plaintiff; words, comparative needed." 567 (emphasis original). East Romine, 518 332, 339-340 1975). A. 13 misconstrued progeny place Part II, supra. stated Sweeney "the satisfied simply 'explains done' 'produc[es] reasons.' " 296 quoting 28, 297-298 plain more: plaintiff.11 14 distinguished ground absence intent. distinction slights rationale cases. consistently articulates lawful action; is, produce allow rationally animus. introduce which, any pretext, lawful. exceeds properly demanded production. 15 apparently feared "[i]f articulate—not prove—a his action, compose fictitious, actions." do believe, limiting noted above, clear reasonably specific. Supra, 255. Loeb Textron, 600 1003, 1011-1012, (CA1 1979). arises both necessity rebutting arising requirement afforded "a opportunity" although bear formal persuasion, nevertheless incentive Thus, normally attempt basis explanation. liberal discovery applicable civil federal supplemented access Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's investigatory files concerning complaint. EEOC Associated Dry Goods Corp., 449 590, 817, 66 762 (1981). Given factors, unpersuaded find particularly difficult lacking confident framework permits meriting relief B 16 teaches equally. selected. 17 court's procedural harbors substantive error. prohibits race, national origin. "The broad, overriding interest, shared employer, employee, consumer, efficient trustworthy workmanship assured neutral decisions." 801, 1823. VII, demand preferential minorities women. 2000e-2(j). Steelworkers Weber, 443 193, 205-206, 2721, 2728-2729, 61 480 statute intended "diminish traditional management prerogatives." 207, 2729. restructure practices maximize number women hired. 577-578, 2949-2950, (1978). 18 read, think, think misjudged applicants itself expose him liability, probative pretexts 1012, 6; see Lieberman Gant, 630 60, (CA2 1980). IV 19 summary, stead superior position.12 vacated, further proceedings consistent opinion. 20 ordered. problems identified overstaffing, lack fiscal control, poor bookkeeping, communication full-time Letter 20, Charles Johnson reprinted App. 38-40. 39. violate VII's pay provision, 2000e-2(h), here. See, e. g., 60 1980); Jackson U. S. Steel 624 436 (CA3 Ambush Montgomery County Government, 620 1048 (CA4 1003 Vaughn Westinghouse Elec. 655 (CA8 1980), cert. pending, 80-276. recognized issues, therefore character presented, differ claims facially policy impact protected classes. 14, 1824 14; 335-336, 15, 1854-1855, described appropriate model racial show: "(i) belongs minority; (ii) job seeking applicants; (iii) that, despite qualifications, rejected; (iv) rejection, open continued seek persons complainant's qualifications." added, standard inflexible, "[t]he facts necessarily vary cases, specification every respect differing situations." 13, 13. instant contested case. showed woman who sought position, left months before finally favor supervision. phrase "prima case" denote establishment mandatory, rebuttable used courts describe enough permit infer issue. 2494 1940). made apparent context use former sense. relationship between created consequential feature law. word 'presumption' refers device allocating burden." F. James & G. Hazard, Procedure 7.9, p. 255 (2d 1977) (footnote omitted). Fed.Rule Evid. 301. 2491 Cf. Maguire, Evidence, Common Sense Law 185-186 (1947). Usually, assessing helps judge determine decided jury. creation progressively sharpen into elusive An articulation admitted suffice. cannot merely answer complaint argument counsel. Thayer, Preliminary Treatise 346 (1898). saying drops imply longer consider introduced establish A satisfactory destroys mandatory initial evidence. Nonetheless, inferences drawn therefrom considered pretextual. Indeed, there cases where combined effective cross-examination suffice discredit reviewed deficiency: "Defendant failed data Burdine Walz. discharged spring shakeup primarily recommendations subordinates Walz do. specify criteria retain best interest program friction department might alleviated Burdine's discharge. Nothing record indicates examined Walz' ability others. such unsubstantiated assertions 'qualification' 'prior record' insufficient absent comparison rejected." 568. wrong legal occasion decide reviewing "clearly erroneous" Rule 52(a). Addressing inappropriate findings questions posed Douglas.

Category: 1