United States Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens
460 U.S. 711 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Once a defendant in a Title VII disparate treatment case has responded to the plaintiff's proof by offering evidence of a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its action, the initial question of whether the plaintiff established a prima facie case is no longer relevant. The trier of fact must then proceed to decide the ultimate question of whether the defendant intentionally discriminated against the plaintiff.
Facts:
- Louis Aikens, a Black man, had been employed by the United States Postal Service in Washington, D.C. since 1937.
- Aikens applied for several promotions but was consistently denied, while white employees were promoted over him.
- Aikens possessed extensive qualifications, including an 'outstanding supervisor' rating, more supervisory seniority and training than most promoted white employees, a master's degree, and doctoral coursework.
- The white employees promoted ahead of Aikens were substantially less educated; of the twelve, only two had any education beyond high school.
- The Postal Service stated its reason for not promoting Aikens was his refusal of several lateral transfers that would have broadened his experience.
- Testimony was introduced alleging that the manager responsible for promotions had made derogatory comments about Black people in general and Aikens in particular.
Procedural Posture:
- Louis Aikens sued the United States Postal Service in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging racial discrimination under Title VII.
- After a bench trial, the District Court entered a judgment in favor of the Postal Service, finding Aikens failed to offer direct proof of discriminatory intent.
- Aikens, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which reversed the District Court's decision.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the appellate court's judgment, and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine.
- On remand, the Court of Appeals reaffirmed its prior decision to reverse the District Court.
- The United States Postal Service, as petitioner, successfully sought a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court for a second time.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
After a Title VII disparate treatment case has been fully tried on the merits, is it necessary for a court to decide whether the plaintiff initially established a prima facie case of discrimination?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Rehnquist
No. Once a Title VII case is fully tried on the merits, the question of whether the plaintiff established a prima facie case becomes irrelevant and the court must decide the ultimate factual issue of intentional discrimination. The Court reasoned that the prima facie case method established in McDonnell Douglas is a procedural device that creates a rebuttable presumption of discrimination. Once the defendant proffers a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its action, that presumption 'drops from the case.' At that point, the district court has all the evidence it needs and should move directly to the ultimate factual inquiry: whether 'the defendant intentionally discriminated against the plaintiff.' Focusing on the prima facie case after the defendant has met its burden of production unnecessarily evades this ultimate question of the employer's motivation.
Concurring - Justice Blackmun
No. The court should focus on the ultimate question of discrimination after the case is fully tried, and this approach reaffirms, rather than abandons, the McDonnell Douglas framework. Justice Blackmun stressed that after the initial presumption drops, the plaintiff retains the ultimate burden of persuasion. A plaintiff can meet this burden in one of two ways: either by directly persuading the court that a discriminatory reason more likely motivated the employer, or by indirectly showing that the employer's proffered explanation is 'unworthy of credence' and is therefore a pretext for discrimination.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the function of the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework in Title VII litigation, establishing that the prima facie case is not a rigid element to be revisited at trial's end, but a preliminary tool to organize proof. By directing trial courts to focus on the 'ultimate question' of discrimination once the defendant has offered its rebuttal, the ruling streamlines the inquiry and prevents litigation from getting bogged down in procedural technicalities. This shifts the focus from procedural hurdles to the substantive question of the employer's true motivation, impacting how discrimination cases are tried and argued.
