St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks
(1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a Title VII employment discrimination case, a fact-finder's rejection of the employer's proffered legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for an adverse employment action does not mandate a judgment for the plaintiff; the plaintiff retains the ultimate burden of proving that the real reason for the action was intentional discrimination.
Facts:
- Melvin Hicks, a black man, was hired as a correctional officer at St. Mary's Honor Center in 1978 and was promoted to shift commander in 1980.
- Following administrative changes in 1984, John Powell became Hicks's immediate supervisor and Steve Long became the superintendent.
- Prior to these changes, Hicks had a satisfactory employment record.
- After the new supervisors took over, Hicks became the subject of repeated and increasingly severe disciplinary actions, including a suspension and a letter of reprimand.
- Hicks was later demoted from shift commander to correctional officer for his subordinates' alleged failure to properly log vehicle use.
- Ultimately, St. Mary's discharged Hicks, citing an incident where he allegedly threatened his supervisor, Powell, during a heated exchange.
Procedural Posture:
- Melvin Hicks sued St. Mary's Honor Center and Steve Long in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri for racial discrimination under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- After a full bench trial, the District Court, as the trier of fact, found for the defendants (St. Mary's and Long).
- The District Court concluded that while the reasons offered by St. Mary's were pretextual, Hicks had failed to prove that the 'crusade to terminate him' was racially motivated rather than personally motivated.
- Hicks, as the appellant, appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that once Hicks proved the employer's proffered reasons were pretextual, he was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
- St. Mary's Honor Center, as petitioner, successfully petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court 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:
In an employment discrimination lawsuit under Title VII, does a fact-finder's rejection of the employer's proffered non-discriminatory reasons as pretextual compel a finding of liability for the plaintiff as a matter of law?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Scalia
No. A fact-finder's rejection of an employer's proffered legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons does not compel judgment for the plaintiff. Although disbelieving the employer's reasons, combined with the elements of the prima facie case, may be sufficient to permit the fact-finder to infer intentional discrimination, it does not mandate such a finding. The ultimate burden of persuasion that the employer intentionally discriminated against the plaintiff remains at all times with the plaintiff. The presumption of discrimination created by the plaintiff's prima facie case under the McDonnell Douglas framework is a procedural device to force a response from the defendant; once the defendant offers a reason, the presumption 'drops from the case,' and the plaintiff must prove both that the employer's reason was false and that the real reason was discrimination.
Dissenting - Justice Souter
Yes. Under the established McDonnell Douglas framework, once a plaintiff proves that all of the employer's proffered reasons for its actions are pretextual, the plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. By showing the employer's explanation is 'unworthy of credence,' the plaintiff has met the ultimate burden of persuasion. The majority's holding abandons two decades of settled precedent, creating an unfair scheme that requires a plaintiff to disprove not only the employer's stated reasons but also any other conceivable, unarticulated reason a fact-finder might find in the record, thereby favoring employers who provide false evidence in court.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the plaintiff's burden of proof in the third stage of the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework for disparate-treatment claims. It rejects the 'pretext-only' approach, under which a plaintiff could win simply by disproving the employer's stated reason. Instead, the Court adopts a 'pretext-plus' framework, requiring the plaintiff to show not only that the employer's reason is false, but also that the true motivation was discriminatory. This holding makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to prevail in discrimination cases that rely solely on circumstantial evidence, as a fact-finder can now conclude that an employer lied for a non-discriminatory reason (e.g., personal animosity) and find for the defendant.
