Court Opinion

ID: 9458425
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 20:51:47.675707+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:35:45.706283
License: Public Domain

ORDER ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
In response to a petition by McDonnell-Douglas Corporation for a rehearing, the majority of the court have decided to modify the court’s opinion by striking Part V thereof and substituting a revised Part V, which is set forth below.
Circuit Judge Lay joins in the revised opinion and adheres to his prior separate concurring opinion.
Circuit Judge Johnsen dissents and files a supplemental dissenting opinion, which is set forth below.
In light' of these modifications, the court denies McDonnell-Douglas Corporation’s petition for a rehearing en banc for the reason that the petition has failed to obtain the vote of a majority of the Circuit Judges who are in regular active service. A rehearing before the panel is likewise denied.
The denial of the rehearing is without prejudice to the right of either party to file a petition for a rehearing on the' court’s modified opinion.
BRIGHT, Circuit Judge.
V.
The record shows that McDonnell has taken the position that it has the right under Title VII to make subjective hiring judgments which do not necessarily rest upon the ability of the applicant to perform the work required. Upon that hypothesis, and apparently because the pleadings did not require McDonnell to defend the charge that its refusal to rehire Green was racially motived, McDonnell rested its case upon a showing that Green had participated in unlawful civil rights activities as reasons for declining to rehire him.
 Our prior decisions make clear that, in cases presenting questions of discriminatory hiring practices, employment decisions based on subjective, rather than objective, criteria carry little weight in rebutting charges of discrimination. See Moore v. Board of Education of Chidester School District No. 59, Chidester, Ark., 448 F.2d 709 (8th Cir. 1971). See also Carter v. Gallagher, 452 F.2d 315 (8th Cir., 1971). We reaffirm this principle here. “If an employment practice which operates to exclude Negroes cannot be shown to be related to job performance, the practice is prohibited.” Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, 431, 91 S.Ct. 849, 853, 28 L.Ed.2d 158 (1971). In enacting Title VII, Congress has mandated the removal of racial barriers to employment. Judicial acceptance of subjectively based hiring decisions must be limited if Title VII is to be more than an illusory commitment to that end, for subjective criteria may mask aspects of prohibited prejudice. Employers seldom admit racial discrimination. Marquez v. Omaha District Sales Office, Ford Division, 440 F.2d 1157, 1162 (8th Cir. 1971). Its presence is often cloaked in generalities or vague criteria which do not measure an applicant’s qualifications in terms of job requirements. Consequently, a black job applicant must usually rest his case of discrimination upon proof that he possessed the requisite qualifications to fill the position which was denied him. In this case, it is undisputed that Green possessed the requisite skills to perform the work for which he applied, and that McDonnell was seeking qualified applicants at the time it refused to hire him and continued to seek qualified appli*353cants thereafter. Moreover, Green’s pri- or performance with McDonnell had earned him a “satisfactory” rating.
When a black man demonstrates that he possesses the qualifications to fill a job opening and that he was denied the job which continues to remain open, we think he presents a prima facie case of racial discrimination. However, an applicant’s past participation in unlawful conduct directed at his prospective employer might indicate the applicant’s lack of a responsible attitude toward performing work for that employer.
Of the several civil rights protests which Green directed against McDonnell, the employer selected two, the “lock-in” and the “stall-in”, as reasons for its refusal to rehire Green. Green should be given the opportunity to show that these reasons offered by the Company were pretextual,6 or otherwise show the presence of racially discriminatory hiring practices by McDonnell which affected its decision.
The district court did not use appropriate standards in determining whether McDonnell’s refusal to hire Green was racially motivated. On remand, both parties will have the opportunity to present evidence on this matter.
The amount of lost earnings claimed by Green is not great,7 but the parties regard this as an important case and have devoted substantial time and energy to its litigation. Although the litigation is still not completed, we deem it appropriate to allow appellant a reasonable attorney’s fee for this appeal, to be taxed as costs, upon counsel’s submission of an estimate of his fee containing details of his services and time spent on this appeal. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k).

. McDonnell advanced an unsupported charge that Green had “actively cooperated” in the “lock-in.” See Judge Lay’s concurring opinion, infra.

. The record shows that Green obtained reasonably equivalent employment subsequent to July 26, 1965, the date when McDonnell refused to rehire him. Untier these circumstances, the district court may limit relief, if any is to be given, to damages based on Green’s loss of earnings between July 26, 1965, and the date on which he acquired reasonably equivalent employment, which loss Green estimated to be between four and five thousand dollars.