Ash v. Tyson Foods, Inc.
546 U.S. 454, 2006 U.S. LEXIS 1816, 163 L. Ed. 2d 1053 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In an employment discrimination claim, (1) the use of the term 'boy' without a racial modifier can be evidence of discriminatory animus depending on context, and (2) evidence that a plaintiff is merely better qualified than the selected candidate (as opposed to 'so much better that it jumps off the page and slaps you in the face') can be sufficient to show an employer's stated reason for its decision was pretext for discrimination.
Facts:
- Anthony Ash and John Hithon, who are African-American, worked as superintendents at a poultry plant owned by Tyson Foods, Inc.
- Two shift manager positions became available at the plant.
- Ash and Hithon both applied for promotions to these open positions.
- Tyson Foods selected two white males for the jobs instead of Ash and Hithon.
- The plant manager who made the promotion decisions had, on some occasions, referred to both Ash and Hithon as 'boy'.
- Ash and Hithon presented evidence that their qualifications were superior to those of the two white applicants who were promoted.
Procedural Posture:
- Anthony Ash and John Hithon sued Tyson Foods, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, alleging race discrimination.
- A jury found in favor of Ash and Hithon and awarded them damages.
- After the verdict, Tyson Foods renewed a motion for judgment as a matter of law, which the District Court granted, overturning the jury's verdict.
- In the alternative, the District Court ordered a new trial.
- Ash and Hithon, as appellants, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment against Ash but reversed it as to Hithon, while still affirming the order for Hithon's new trial.
- Ash and Hithon then petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the Court of Appeals err by holding that (1) the use of the term 'boy,' standing alone, is not evidence of discriminatory animus, and (2) a plaintiff's evidence of superior qualifications can only show pretext if the disparity 'is so apparent as virtually to jump off the page and slap you in the face'?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes. The Court of Appeals applied incorrect legal standards for evaluating evidence of discrimination. First, while the term 'boy' will not always be evidence of racial animus, it is not always benign when used alone. Its meaning depends on context, inflection, tone of voice, local custom, and historical usage, and holding that it requires a racial modifier to be probative of bias is erroneous. Second, the standard that a disparity in qualifications must 'jump off the page and slap you in the face' to show pretext is unhelpful and imprecise. Supreme Court precedent establishes that evidence of superior qualifications can be probative of pretext, and other circuits have articulated more appropriate standards, such as whether the plaintiff was 'clearly superior' or 'significantly better qualified.' Therefore, the lower court's judgment is vacated and the case is remanded for reconsideration under the proper standards.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies and arguably lowers the evidentiary bar for plaintiffs in employment discrimination cases within the Eleventh Circuit. It invalidates two overly restrictive standards, making it easier for plaintiffs to use racially charged but ambiguous language and evidence of superior qualifications to prove pretext. The ruling signals to lower courts that they must conduct a more holistic and context-sensitive analysis of evidence rather than applying rigid, formulaic tests that may screen out meritorious claims. While the Court declined to establish a definitive new standard for pretext based on qualifications, it endorsed a more flexible approach, enhancing a plaintiff's ability to get their case before a jury.
Unlock the full brief for Ash v. Tyson Foods, Inc.