Legal Document

460 U.S. 711 103 S.Ct. 1478 75 L.Ed.2d 403 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE BOARD OF GOVERNORS, Petitionerv.Louis H. AIKENS. No. 81-1044. Argued Nov. 9, 1982. Decided April 4, 1983. Syllabus Respondent, a black employee of the United States Postal Service, filed suit under Title VII Civil Rights Act 1964, claiming that Service had discriminated against him on account his race by refusing to promote him. After bench trial, District Court entered judgment for but Appeals ultimately reversed, holding erred in requiring respondent offer direct proof discriminatory intent and show as part prima facie case he was "as qualified or more qualified" than people who were promoted. Held: By framing issue here terms whether is established an employee's showing only black, applied promotion which possessed minimum qualifications, employer selected nonminority applicant, parties have unnecessarily evaded ultimate question discrimination vel non. establishing case, plaintiff creates rebuttable presumption unlawfully him, rebut defendant must clearly set forth through introduction admissible evidence, reasons plaintiff's rejection. But when fails persuade district court dismiss action lack responds offering evidence reason rejection, done here, drops from factfinder then decide factual intentionally plaintiff. Here, erroneously thought required submit intent, focused rather directly discrimination. Thus it not clear its findings fact favor influenced mistaken view law; accordingly, remanded so may basis before respondent. Pp. 713-717. 214 U.S.App.D.C. 239, 665 F.2d 1057, vacated remanded. Lawrence G. Wallace, Washington, D.C., petitioner. Jack Greenberg, New York City, Justice REHNQUIST delivered opinion Court. 1 Respondent Louis Aikens amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., petitioner, race. Aikens, claimed discriminatorily refused higher positions D.C. Post Office where been employed since 1937. reversed. 642 514 (CADC 1980). We Appeals' reconsideration light Texas Department Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 248, 101 1089, 67 207 (1981). 453 902, 3135, 69 989 2 On remand, reaffirmed earlier intent. It also held show, 1058, 1059 1981) (Per Curiam ). granted certiorari.1 455 1015, 102 1707, 72 132 (1982). 3 The argues has shown non-minority applicant "prima " employment VII. submitted sufficient warrant finding case.2 Because this fully tried merits, surprising find still addressing made out case. think these terms, they non.3 4 "presumption against" 254, 1094, See McDonnell Douglas Corp. Green, 411 792, 93 1817, 36 668 (1973). To presumption, "the forth, supra, U.S., at 255, S.Ct., 1094. In other words, "produc[e] rejected, someone else preferred, legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason." Id., 5 case,4 finder rejection within meaning At stage, McDonnell-Burdine "drops case," id., n. 10, 1095, inquiry proceeds new level specificity." 1095. presented Service's witnesses testified promoted because turned down several lateral transfers would broadened experience. Tr. 311-313, 318-320, 325; Pet.App. 53a. position 6 "factual inquiry" "whether plaintiff." 253, 1093. . treating 'some less favorably others their race, color, religion, sex, national origin.' Furnco Construction Waters, 438 567, 577, 98 2943, 2949, 57 957 (1978), quoting Int'l Brotherhood Teamsters States, 431 324, 335, 15, 97 1843, 1854, 52 396 (1977). method "never intended be rigid, mechanized, ritualistic. Rather, merely sensible, orderly way evaluate common experience bears critical discrimination." Furnco, 2949. Where everything if properly really did no longer relevant. all needs 7 state record close should proceeded specific directly, just courts disputed questions civil litigation.5 As we stated Burdine: 8 "The retains burden persuasion. [H]e succeed either persuading likely motivated indirectly employer's proffered explanation unworthy credence." 256, 9 short, party's motivation believes. 10 All recognized facing triers cases both sensitive difficult. prohibitions contained 1964 reflect important policy. There will seldom "eyewitness" testimony mental processes. none means trial reviewing treat differently fact. Nor make even difficult applying legal rules devised govern allocation burdens order presentation proof," 252, 1093, deciding question. law often obliges finders inquire into person's mind. Lord Bowen said problem misrepresentation nearly century ago: 11 man's mind much digestion. true very prove what particular time is, can ascertained anything else." Eddington Fitzmaurice, 29 Ch.Div. 459, 483 (1885). 12 see 3, cannot certain law. accordingly vacate Appeals, remand Aikens. 13 ordered. 14 MARSHALL concurs judgment. 15 BLACKMUN, with whom BRENNAN joins, concurring. 16 I join Court's opinion. write stress fact, however, that, read opinion, today reaffirms framework (1973), cases. Under framework, once defendant-employer articulated decision, demonstrating pretextual, "not decision." Dept. implies, ante, 714-715, "merges [the plaintiff] victim intentional 17 This met one two ways. First, notes, decision reason. Ante, 714, 716 717. addition, carried shows "that citing Douglas, 804-805, 1825-26. While correct determination liability different types suits, 716, requires prevail third stage demonstrates given decision. consistently distinguished disparate treatment involving facially neutral standards impact minority applicants. See, e.g., 252 5, 1093 (1981); 802 14, 1824 showed white persons detailed over between 1966 1974. rated "an outstanding supervisor whose management abilities are far above average." App. 8. derogatory negative information Personnel Folder. He supervisory seniority training development courses Masters Degree completed three years residence towards Ph.D. substantially education employees advanced ahead him; 12, any beyond high school college degree. introduced person responsible decisions numerous comments about blacks general particular. If find, discriminate do believe reversible error. lawsuit, circumstantial evidence. trier consider giving whatever weight credence deserves. Thus, agree International 358 44, 1866 (1977) ("[T]he formula does require discrimination"). appears point decided When concluded chief, moved ground there 256. denied motion. 259. 47a. Of course, adequate "opportunity demonstrate decision," pretext. suggestion such opportunity.

Classification Label: 1