Circumstantial evidence and the McDonnell Douglas Case
A Plaintiff may still prove a case through circumstantial evidence.
The steps for proving a case circumstantially can be found in the McDonnell Douglas case.
Facts of the Case:
In this case a black civil-rights activist, engaged in a disruptive activity against an employer as part of his protest that his discharge and the company’s general hiring practices were racially motivated. The company advertised for qualified personnel, and rejected the employee’s re-employment application on the grounds of the protest conduct. The employee filed a complaint with the EEOC) alleging violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC found that there was reasonable cause to believe that company’s rejection of the employee violated § 704 (a) of the Act, which forbids discrimination against applicants or employees for attempting to protest or correct allegedly discriminatory employment conditions. However, the EEOC made no finding on the employee’s allegation that the company had also violated § 703 (a) (1), which prohibits discrimination in any employment decision.
The Supreme Court held that the plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case through proof of each of the following elements:
- Plaintiff is a member of a protected racial group;
- Plaintiff was meeting the employer’s legitimate performance expectations;
- Plaintiff was discharged; and
- Employer treated similarly situated employees of other races more favorably.
If the plaintiff proves a prima facie case, the employer must “articulate” (simply state), but not prove, a non-discriminatory reason for the discharge. Then the employee has the opportunity to prove that the offered non-discriminatory reason for the discharge was pretextual not the real reason for the termination.
Example: An employee is fired. Her employer states that she was stealing. The employee has an opportunity to prove that there was no evidence of theft, but that she was discharged because of her race. But this creates confusion, because she could have been fired because her supervisor did not like her. Does that mean additional proof is needed?
In 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc. in which it held that an employee who established a prima facie case by meeting the first four elements of the McDonnell Douglas test (mentioned above) and then proved that the employer’s stated reasons for the termination was pretextual, did not need to present additional proof to allow a jury to decide the case in the employee’s favor. However, while proof of pretext was found to be a “minimum requirement” to allow a judge to present the plaintiff’s case to a jury, the jury still retained the discretion to decide ultimately if the adverse action was or was not illegally motivated by discrimination.