price waterhouse hopkins argued october decided may respondent senior manager office petitioner professional accounting partnership proposed partnership neither offered denied partnership instead candidacy held reconsideration following year partners office later refused repropose partnership sued petitioner federal district title vii civil rights act charging discriminated basis sex partnership decisions district ruled respondent favor question liability holding petitioner unlawfully discriminated basis sex consciously giving credence effect partners comments resulted sex stereotyping appeals affirmed courts held employer allowed discriminatory motive play part employment decision must prove clear convincing evidence made decision absence discrimination petitioner carried burden held judgment reversed case remanded app reversed remanded justice brennan joined justice marshall justice blackmun justice stevens concluded plaintiff title vii case proves gender played part employment decision defendant may avoid finding liability proving preponderance evidence made decision even taken plaintiff gender account courts erred requiring petitioner make proof clear convincing evidence pp balance employee rights employer prerogatives established title vii eliminating certain bases distinguishing among employees otherwise preserving employers freedom choice decisive case words act forbids employer make adverse decision employee individual sex requires looking reasons legitimate illegitimate contributing decision time made preservation employers freedom choice means employer liable prove taken gender account come decision prior decisions demonstrate plaintiff shows impermissible motive played motivating part adverse employment decision thereby places burden defendant show made decision absence unlawful motive petitioner may meet burden merely showing respondent interpersonal problems abrasiveness staff members constituted legitimate reason denying partnership instead petitioner must show legitimate reason standing alone induced petitioner deny respondent partnership pp conventional rules civil litigation generally apply title vii cases one rules parties need prove case preponderance evidence pp district finding sex stereotyping permitted play part evaluating respondent candidate partnership clearly erroneous finding undermined fact many suspect comments made respondent made partners supporters rather detractors pp justice white although concluding appeals erred requiring petitioner prove clear convincing evidence reached employment decision absence improper motive rather merely requiring proof preponderance evidence mt healthy city bd ed doyle sets forth proper approach causation case also concluded plurality errs seeming require least cases employer carry burden submitting objective evidence result occurred absent unlawful motivation case legitimate motive found ample grounds action taken employer credibly testifies action taken legitimate reasons alone ample proof special requirement objective evidence even plainly case employer denies illegitimate motive first place finds illegitimate well legitimate factors motivated adverse action pp justice although agreeing facts case burden persuasion shift petitioner demonstrate preponderance evidence reached decision absent consideration respondent gender burden shift properly part liability phase litigation concluded plurality misreads title vii substantive causation requirement command burden shifting employer decisional process tainted awareness sex race way thereby effectively eliminates requirement justice also concluded burden shifting rule limited cases present employer created uncertainty causation knowingly giving substantial weight impermissible criterion pp contrary plurality conclusion title vii plain language making unlawful employer undertake adverse employment action prohibited factors statute legislative history demonstrate substantive violation occurs consideration illegitimate criterion cause adverse action however nothing language history purpose statute prohibits adoption evidentiary rule places burden persuasion defendant demonstrate legitimate concerns justified adverse employment action plaintiff convinced factfinder forbidden factor played substantial role employment decision rule adopted tort analogous types cases leaving burden proof plaintiff prove causation unfair contrary deterrent purposes embodied concept duty care pp although burden shifting rule adopted departs careful framework established mcdonnell douglas green texas dept community affairs burdine clearly contemplate individual disparate treatment plaintiff bears burden persuasion throughout litigation departure justified cases present plaintiff presented direct evidence employer placed substantial though unquantifiable reliance forbidden factor making employment decision taken proof far go appropriate require defendant created uncertainty causation considering illegitimate criterion show decision justified wholly legitimate concerns moreover rule shifting burden circumstances conflict title vii policies particularly prohibition preferential treatment based prohibited factors watson fort worth bank trust distinguished pp thus order justify shifting burden causation issue defendant disparate treatment plaintiff must show direct evidence decisionmakers placed substantial negative reliance illegitimate criterion reaching decision showing entitles factfinder presume employer discriminatory animus made difference outcome employer fails carry burden persuasion conclude employer decision made consideration illegitimate factor thereby satisfying substantive standard liability title vii burden shifting rule supplements mcdonnell framework continues apply plaintiff failed satisfy threshold standard set forth herein pp kathryn oberly argued cause petitioner briefs paul bator douglas poe eldon olson ulric sullivan james heller argued cause respondent brief douglas huron robert williams douglas mcdowell filed brief equal employment advisory council amicus curiae urging reversal briefs amici curiae urging affirmance filed american federation labor congress industrial organizations marsha berzon laurence gold american psychological association donald bersoff committees civil rights labor employment law sex law association bar city new york jonathan lang eugene friedman arthur leonard colleen mcmahon legal defense education fund et al sarah burns lynn hecht schafran joan bertin john powell donna lenhoff solicitor general fried assistant attorney general reynolds deputy solicitor general merrill deputy assistant attorney general clegg brian martin david flynn filed brief amicus curiae justice brennan announced judgment delivered opinion justice marshall justice blackmun justice stevens join ann hopkins senior manager office price waterhouse proposed partnership neither offered denied admission partnership instead candidacy held reconsideration following year partners office later refused repropose partnership sued price waterhouse title vii civil rights act stat amended et charging firm discriminated basis sex decisions regarding partnership judge gesell federal district district columbia ruled favor question liability supp appeals district columbia circuit affirmed app granted certiorari resolve conflict among courts appeals concerning respective burdens proof defendant plaintiff suit title vii shown employment decision resulted mixture legitimate illegitimate motives price waterhouse nationwide professional accounting partnership senior manager becomes candidate partnership partners local office submit name candidate partners firm invited submit written comments candidate either long short form depending partner degree exposure candidate every partner firm submits comments every candidate reviewing comments interviewing partners submitted firm admissions committee makes recommendation policy board recommendation either firm accept candidate partnership put application hold deny promotion outright policy board decides whether submit candidate name entire partnership vote hold candidacy reject recommendation admissions committee decision policy board controlled fixed guidelines certain number positive comments partners guarantee candidate admission partnership specific quantity negative comments necessarily defeat application price waterhouse places limit number persons admit partnership given year ann hopkins worked price waterhouse office government services washington five years partners office proposed candidate partnership partners firm time women persons proposed partnership year hopkins woman candidates admitted partnership rejected including hopkins held reconsideration following year thirteen partners submitted comments hopkins supported bid partnership three partners recommended candidacy placed hold eight stated informed opinion eight recommended denied partnership jointly prepared statement supporting candidacy partners hopkins office showcased successful effort secure million contract department state labeling outstanding performance one hopkins carried virtually partner level plaintiff exh despite price waterhouse attempt trial minimize contribution project judge gesell specifically found hopkins played key role price waterhouse successful effort win dollar contract department state indeed went one partnership candidates price waterhouse year comparable record terms successfully securing major contracts partnership ibid partners hopkins office praised character well accomplishments describing joint statement outstanding professional deft touch strong character independence integrity plaintiff exh clients appear agreed assessments trial one official state department described extremely competent intelligent strong forthright productive energetic creative tr another official praised hopkins decisiveness broadmindedness intellectual clarity words stimulating conversationalist evaluations led judge gesell conclude hopkins difficulty dealing clients clients appear pleased work generally viewed highly competent project leader worked long hours pushed vigorously meet deadlines demanded much multidisciplinary staffs worked many occasions however hopkins aggressiveness apparently spilled abrasiveness staff members seem borne brunt hopkins brusqueness long bid partnership partners evaluating work counseled improve relations staff members although later evaluations indicate improvement hopkins perceived shortcomings important area eventually doomed bid partnership virtually partners negative remarks hopkins even partners supporting interpersonal skills upporters opponents candidacy stressed judge gesell indicated sometimes overly aggressive unduly harsh difficult work impatient staff clear signs though partners reacted negatively hopkins personality woman one partner described macho defendant exh another suggested overcompensated woman defendant exh third advised take course charm school defendant exh several partners criticized use profanity response one partner suggested partners objected swearing lady using foul language tr another supporter explained hopkins ha matured somewhat masculine mgr authoritative formidable much appealing lady ptr candidate defendant exh man judge gesell found bore responsibility explaining hopkins reasons policy board decision place candidacy hold delivered coup de grace order improve chances partnership thomas beyer advised hopkins walk femininely talk femininely dress femininely wear hair styled wear jewelry susan fiske social psychologist associate professor psychology university testified trial partnership selection process price waterhouse likely influenced sex stereotyping testimony focused overtly comments partners also remarks made partners knew hopkins slightly intensely critical one partner example baldly stated hopkins universally disliked staff defendant exh another described consistently annoying irritating ibid yet people little contact hopkins according fiske hopkins uniqueness woman pool candidates subjectivity evaluations made likely sharply critical remarks product sex stereotyping although fiske admitted say certainty whether particular comment result stereotyping fiske based opinion review submitted comments explaining commonly accepted practice social psychologists reach kind conclusion without met people involved decisionmaking process previous years female candidates partnership also evaluated terms general matter judge gesell concluded andidates viewed favorably partners believed maintained femin ity becoming effective professional managers environment identified women lib er regarded negative comment fact judge found previous years ne partner repeatedly commented consider woman seriously partnership candidate believed women even capable functioning senior managers yet firm took action discourage comments recorded vote overall summary evaluations ibid judge gesell found price waterhouse legitimately emphasized interpersonal skills partnership decisions also found firm fabricated complaints hopkins interpersonal skills pretext discrimination moreover concluded firm give decisive emphasis traits hopkins woman although male candidates lacked skills admitted partnership judge found candidates possessed positive traits hopkins lacked judge went decide however partners remarks hopkins stemmed impermissibly cabined view proper behavior women price waterhouse done nothing disavow reliance comments held price waterhouse unlawfully discriminated hopkins basis sex consciously giving credence effect partners comments resulted sex stereotyping noting price waterhouse avoid equitable relief proving clear convincing evidence placed hopkins candidacy hold even absent discrimination judge decided firm carried heavy burden appeals affirmed district ultimate conclusion departed analysis one particular held even plaintiff proves discrimination played role employment decision defendant found liable proves clear convincing evidence made decision absence discrimination app approach employer deemed violated title vii proves made decision absence impermissible motive whereas district approach employer proof respect avoids equitable relief decide today appeals better approach courts erred requiring employer make proof clear convincing evidence ii specification standard causation title vii decision kind conduct violates statute according price waterhouse employer violates title vii gives decisive consideration employee gender race national origin religion making decision affects employee price waterhouse theory even plaintiff shows gender played part employment decision still burden show decision different employer discriminated hopkins view hand employer violates statute whenever allows one attributes play part employment decision plaintiff shows occurred according hopkins employer proof made decision absence discrimination serve limit equitable relief avoid finding liability conclude often happens truth lies somewhere passing title vii congress made simple momentous announcement sex race religion national origin relevant selection evaluation compensation employees yet statute purport limit qualities characteristics employers may take account making employment decisions converse therefore cause legislation title vii eliminates certain bases distinguishing among employees otherwise preserving employers freedom choice balance employee rights employer prerogatives turns decisive case us congress intent forbid employers take gender account making employment decisions appears face statute language statute forbids employer fail refuse hire discharge individual otherwise discriminate respect compensation terms conditions privileges employment limit segregate classify employees applicants employment way deprive tend deprive individual employment opportunities otherwise adversely affect status employee individual sex emphasis added take words mean gender must irrelevant employment decisions construe words colloquial shorthand causation price waterhouse misunderstand causation hypothetical construct determining whether particular factor cause given event begin assuming factor present time event ask whether even factor absent event nevertheless transpired way present active tense operative verbs fail refuse contrast turns attention actual moment event question adverse employment decision critical inquiry one commanded words whether gender factor employment decision moment made moreover since know words mean solely also know title vii meant condemn even decisions based mixture legitimate illegitimate considerations therefore employer considers gender legitimate factors time making decision decision sex legitimate considerations even may say later context litigation decision gender taken account attribute meaning words dissent asserts post divest causal significance simple example illustrates point suppose two physical forces act upon move object suppose either force acting alone moved object dissent neither physical force cause motion unless show one object moved apparently forces simply air unless identify least one cause object movement ibid events causally overdetermined words may cause need leave common sense doorstep interpret statute difficult us imagine simple words congress meant obligate plaintiff identify precise causal role played legitimate illegitimate motivations employment decision challenges conclude instead congress meant obligate prove employer relied upon considerations coming decision interpretation words also supported fact title vii identify one circumstance employer may take gender account making employment decision namely gender bona fide occupational qualification bfoq reasonably necessary normal operation th particular business enterprise plausible inference draw provision circumstances person gender may considered making decisions affect indeed title vii even forbids employers make gender indirect stumbling block employment opportunities employer may held condition employment opportunities satisfaction facially neutral tests qualifications disproportionate adverse impact members protected groups tests qualifications required performance job see watson fort worth bank trust griggs duke power say employer may take gender account however end matter describes one aspect title vii important aspect statute preservation employer remaining freedom choice conclude preservation freedom means employer shall liable prove even taken gender account come decision regarding particular person statute maintenance employer prerogatives evident statute history congress begin existence bfoq exception shows congress unwillingness require employers change nature operations response statute emphasis business necessity cases see watson griggs legitimate nondiscriminatory reason cases see mcdonnell douglas green texas dept community affairs burdine results awareness title vii balance employee rights employer prerogatives mcdonnell douglas described follows title vii goal eradicate discrimination preserving workplace efficiency broad overriding interest shared employer employee consumer efficient trustworthy workmanship assured fair racially neutral employment personnel decisions implementation decisions abundantly clear title vii tolerates racial discrimination subtle otherwise employer ignored attributes enumerated statute congress hoped naturally focus qualifications applicant employee intent drive employers focus qualifications rather race religion sex national origin theme good deal statute legislative history interpretive memorandum entered congressional record senators case clark comanagers bill senate representative general theme according memorandum title vii expressly protects employer right insist prospective applicant negro white must meet applicable job qualifications indeed purpose title vii promote hiring basis job qualifications rather basis race color cong rec quoted griggs duke power supra memorandum went discriminate make distinction make difference treatment favor distinctions differences treatment favor prohibited section based five forbidden criteria race color religion sex national origin criterion qualification employment affected title cong rec many legislators made statements similar effect see need set remark full central point employer may take gender account making employment decision except narrow circumstances gender bfoq free decide woman reasons think principles require plaintiff title vii case shows gender played motivating part employment decision defendant may avoid finding liability proving made decision even allowed gender play role balance burdens direct result title vii balance rights holding casts shadow burdine decided even plaintiff made prima facie case discrimination title vii burden persuasion shift employer show stated legitimate reason employment decision true reason stress first neither shifted burden persuasion price waterhouse question fact district found hopkins shown firm stated reason decision pretextual moreover since hold plaintiff retains burden persuasion issue whether gender played part employment decision situation us one shifting burdens addressed burdine instead employer burden appropriately deemed affirmative defense plaintiff must persuade factfinder one point employer wishes prevail must persuade another see nlrb transportation management price waterhouse claim employer bear burden proof bears one plaintiff shown substantial evidence price waterhouse explanation failing promote hopkins true reason action brief petitioner merely restates argument plaintiff case must squeeze proof burdine framework decision product mixture legitimate illegitimate motives however simply makes sense ask whether legitimate reason true reason brief petitioner emphasis added decision question asked burdine see transportation management supra oblivious last point dissent insist burdine framework perform work never intended perform require plaintiff challenges adverse employment decision legitimate illegitimate considerations played part pretend decision fact stemmed single source premise burdine either legitimate illegitimate set considerations led challenged decision say burdine evidentiary scheme help us decide case admittedly involving kinds considerations cast aspersions utility scheme circumstances designed deciding today traverse new ground past confronted title vii cases employer used illegitimate criterion distinguish among employees held employer burden justify decisions resulting practice employer asserted gender bfoq within meaning example assumed employer must show must use gender criterion employment see dothard rawlinson related context although equal pay act expressly permits employers pay different wages women disparate pay result factor sex see decided employer employee must prove actual disparity sex linked see corning glass works brennan finally courts held title vii amended pregnancy discrimination act employer burden showing limitations work allows pregnant woman perform necessary light pregnancy see hayes shelby memorial hospital wright olin examples demonstrate assumption always employer allows gender affect process must carry burden justifying ultimate decision past required women whose gender proved relevant employment decision establish negative proposition subject decision men today reached similar conclusion contexts law announces certain characteristic irrelevant allocation burdens benefits mt healthy city bd ed doyle plaintiff claimed discharged public school teacher exercising rights first amendment wish place employee better position result exercise constitutionally protected conduct occupied done nothing concluded employee able engaging conduct prevent employer assessing performance record reaching decision rehire basis record therefore held plaintiff shown constitutionally protected speech substantial motivating factor adverse treatment employer employer obligated prove preponderance evidence reached decision plaintiff even absence protected conduct finds plaintiff standard effectively concluded illegitimate motive cause employment decision see givhan western line consolidated school see also arlington heights metropolitan housing development applying mt healthy standard plaintiff alleged unconstitutional motive contributed enactment legislation hunter underwood transportation management upheld nlrb interpretation national labor relations act forbids order affirmative relief discriminatory conduct union member individual suspended discharged cause board decided provision meant employee shown suspension discharge based part hostility unions employer prove preponderance evidence made decision absence impermissible motive situation emphasized employer wrongdoer acted motive declared illegitimate statute fair bear risk influence legal illegal motives separated knowingly created risk risk created innocent activity wrongdoing short time concluded plaintiff shows impermissible motive played motivating part adverse employment decision thereby placed upon defendant burden show made decision absence unlawful motive decision today treads path saying gender played motivating part employment decision mean asked employer moment decision reasons received truthful response one reasons applicant employee woman specific context sex stereotyping employer acts basis belief woman aggressive must acted basis gender although parties overtly dispute last proposition placement price waterhouse sex stereotyping quotation marks throughout brief seems us insinuation either stereotyping present case lacks legal relevance reject possibilities existence sex stereotyping case inclined quarrel district conclusion number partners comments showed sex stereotyping work see infra legal relevance sex stereotyping beyond day employer evaluate employees assuming insisting matched stereotype associated group forbidding employers discriminate individuals sex congress intended strike entire spectrum disparate treatment men women resulting sex stereotypes los angeles dept water power manhart quoting sprogis air lines employer objects aggressiveness women whose positions require trait places women intolerable impermissible catch job behave aggressively job title vii lifts women bind remarks work based sex stereotypes inevitably prove gender played part particular employment decision plaintiff must show employer actually relied gender making decision making showing stereotyped remarks certainly evidence gender played part event stereotyping case simply consist stray remarks contrary hopkins proved price waterhouse invited partners submit comments comments stemmed sex stereotypes important part policy board decision hopkins assessment submitted comments price waterhouse way disclaimed reliance evaluations price waterhouse suggests discrimination air rather hopkins puts discrimination brought ground visited upon employee brief respondent focusing hopkins specific proof however suggest limitation possible ways proving stereotyping played motivating role employment decision refrain deciding specific facts standing alone establish plaintiff case since decision unnecessary case see post concurring judgment employer proof cases employer able present objective evidence probable decision absence impermissible motive moreover proving decision justified proving decision made givhan quoting ayers western line consolidated school district employer may words prevail case offering legitimate sufficient reason decision reason motivate time decision finally employer may meet burden case merely showing time decision motivated part legitimate reason premise case legitimate reason present indeed case price waterhouse already made showing convincing judge gesell hopkins interpersonal problems legitimate concern employer instead must show legitimate reason standing alone induced make decision iii courts held employer allowed discriminatory impulse play motivating part employment decision must prove clear convincing evidence made decision absence discrimination persuaded better rule employer must make showing preponderance evidence conventional rules civil litigation generally apply title vii cases see postal service bd governors aikens discrimination treat ed differently ultimate questions fact one rules parties civil litigation need prove case preponderance evidence see herman maclean huddleston exceptions standard uncommon fact ordinarily recognized government seeks take unusual coercive action action dramatic entering award money damages conventional relief individual see santosky kramer termination parental rights addington texas involuntary commitment woodby ins deportation schneiderman denaturalization rarely required clear convincing proof action defended seeks conventional relief see gertz robert welch defamation find significant cases defendant rather plaintiff sought elevated standard proof suggesting standard ordinarily serves shield rather hopkins seeks use sword true hopkins emphasizes noted clear distinction measure proof necessary establish fact petitioner sustained damage measure proof necessary enable jury fix amount story parchment paterson parchment paper likewise equal employment opportunity commission eeoc regulation require federal agencies proved violated title vii show clear convincing evidence individual employee entitled relief see cfr finally true emphasized importance relief victims discrimination see albemarle paper moody yet sources deals proper determination relief rather initial finding liability seen easily eeoc regulation operates agency eeoc found employee agency discriminated see cfr held proving made decision absence discrimination employer may avoid finding liability altogether simply avoid certain equitable relief authorities help hopkins show elevate standard proof employer position significantly cases resemble one mt healthy transportation management require clear convincing proof mt healthy transportation management inclined say public policy firing employees spoke issues public concern affiliated union less important policy discharging employees basis gender policies vitally important adequately served requiring proof preponderance evidence although price waterhouse concretely tell us proof preponderant even clear convincing general claim implicit request less stringent standard since lower courts required price waterhouse make proof clear convincing evidence determine whether price waterhouse proved preponderance evidence placed hopkins candidacy hold even permitted evaluations play part process thus shall remand case determination made iv district found sex stereotyping permitted play part evaluation hopkins candidate partnership price waterhouse disputes stereotyping occurred played part decision place hopkins candidacy hold firm view words district factual conclusions clearly erroneous agree finding partners comments reflected sex stereotyping district relied part fiske expert testimony without directly impugning fiske credentials qualifications price waterhouse insinuates social psychologist unable identify sex stereotyping evaluations without investigating whether evaluations basis reality argument comes late trial counsel price waterhouse twice assured question fiske expertise app failed challenge legitimacy discipline without contradiction price waterhouse fiske testified discerned sex stereotyping partners evaluations hopkins explained part business identify stereotyping written documents inclined accept petitioner belated unsubstantiated characterization fiske testimony gossamer evidence brief petitioner based intuitive hunches detection sex stereotyping intuitively divined disposed adopt dissent dismissive attitude toward fiske field study toward professional integrity see post indeed tempted say fiske expert testimony merely icing hopkins cake takes special training discern sex stereotyping description aggressive female employee requiring course charm school turning thomas beyer memorable advice hopkins require expertise psychology know employee flawed interpersonal skills corrected suit new shade lipstick perhaps employee sex interpersonal skills drawn criticism price waterhouse also charges hopkins produced evidence sex stereotyping played role decision place candidacy hold stressed however hopkins showed partnership solicited evaluations firm partners generally relied heavily evaluations making decision partners comments product stereotyping firm way disclaimed reliance particular comments either hopkins case past certainly plausible one might say inevitable conclusion draw set circumstances policy board making decision fact take account partners comments including comments motivated stereotypical notions women proper deportment price waterhouse concedes proof transportation management adequately showed employer relied impermissible motivation firing plaintiff brief petitioner evidence case discriminatory motive contributed plaintiff discharge employer harbored grudge toward plaintiff account union activity contrary price waterhouse suggestion direct evidence grudge played role decision fact employer given reasons explaining plaintiff discharge see partnership considers proof sufficient know takes vehement issue hopkins proof finding sex stereotyping played part policy board decision undermined fact many suspect comments made supporters rather detractors hopkins negative comment even made context generally favorable review nevertheless may influence decisionmaker think less highly candidate policy board fact simply tally yesses noes regarding candidate carefully reviewed content submitted comments additional suggestion comments made persons outside decisionmaking chain brief petitioner therefore harmed hopkins simply ignores critical role partners comments played policy board partnership decisions price waterhouse appears think affirm factual findings trial without deciding instead overbearing aggressive curt hopkins fact kind considerate patient indeed impression petitioner misunderstands theory hopkins prevailed district judge acknowledged hopkins conduct justified complaints behavior senior manager also concluded reactions least partners reactions woman manager evaluation based subjective assessment person strengths weaknesses simply true evaluator focus even mention weaknesses thus even knew hopkins personality problems tell us partners cast evaluations hopkins terms criticized sharply criticized man job review evidence decide negative reactions hopkins based reality perception hopkins character irrelevant sit determine whether hopkins nice decide whether partners reacted negatively personality woman hold plaintiff title vii case proves gender played motivating part employment decision defendant may avoid finding liability proving preponderance evidence made decision even taken plaintiff gender account courts erred deciding defendant must make proof clear convincing evidence reverse appeals judgment price waterhouse liability remand case proceedings ordered footnotes question say least left circuits disarray third fourth fifth seventh circuits require plaintiff challenging adverse employment decision show gender race religion national origin decision favor see bellissimo westinghouse electric cert denied ross communications satellite peters shreveport mcquillen wisconsin education assn council first second sixth eleventh circuits hand hold plaintiff shown discriminatory motive substantial motivating factor employment decision employer may avoid finding liability proving made decision even absence discrimination courts either specified employer must prove case preponderance evidence mentioned proper standard proof see fields clark university motivating factor berl westchester county substantial part terbovitz fiscal adair county motivating factor bell birmingham linen service appeals district columbia circuit shown case follows rule except requires employer proof clear convincing rather merely preponderant app see also toney block app scalia destructive purposes title vii require plaintiff establish difficult hypothetical proposition discrimination employment decision made favor appeals ninth circuit also requires clear convincing proof goes holding title vii violation made soon plaintiff shows impermissible motivation played part employment decision point employer may avoid reinstatement award backpay proving made decision absence unlawful motive see fadhl city county san francisco kennedy significant factor last appeals eighth circuit draws distinction ninth liability remedial phases title vii litigation requires preponderance evidence employer see bibbs block en banc discernible factor disregard purposes discussion special context affirmative action congress specifically declined require employment decision cause order escape affirmative penalty reinstatement backpay introduced house bill became title vii forbade affirmative relief individual refused employment advancement suspended discharged cause emphasis added phrase cause eventually deleted favor phrase reason one enumerated characteristics see cong rec representative celler explained substitution specif ied cause view find violation act based facts discrimination grounds race color religion national origin hopkins first time argues price waterhouse violated subjected biased decisionmaking process tended deprive woman partnership basis sex since hopkins make argument address made passing reference similar question mcdonald santa fe trail transportation stated title vii plaintiff seeks show employer explanation challenged employment decision pretextual required shown race cause passage however suggest plaintiff must show cause indicates prevails important mcdonald dealt question whether employer stated reason decision reason action unlike case us today therefore mcdonald involve mixed motives difference decisive distinguishing case involving pretext see infra congress specifically rejected amendment placed word solely front words cong rec past acknowledged authoritativeness interpretive memorandum written two bipartisan captains title vii see firefighters stotts many legislators statements memorandum quoted text focused specifically race rather gender religion national origin however limit statements context race instead take general statements meaning title vii somewhat bizarre path sex came included forbidden criterion employment included attempt defeat bill see whalen longest debate legislative history civil rights act persuade us legislators statements pertaining race irrelevant cases alleging gender discrimination amendment added sex one forbidden criteria employment passed course statute face treats enumerated categories exactly token specific references gender throughout opinion principles announce apply equal force discrimination based race religion national origin hopkins argues made showing entitled finding price waterhouse discriminated basis sex consequence says partnership proof limit relief received relies title vii permits award affirmative relief finds employer intentionally engaged intentionally engaging unlawful employment practice yet forbids order reinstatement backpay individual individual refused employment advancement suspended discharged reason discrimination account race color religion sex national origin emphasis added take provision mean inevitably find violation statute without considered whether employment decision absent impermissible motive interpret provision defining remedies influence substantive commands statute think provision merely limits courts authority award affirmative relief circumstances violation statute dependent upon effect employer discriminatory practices particular employee suits class actions crucial difference individual claim discrimination class action alleging general pattern practice discrimination manifest inquiry regarding individual claim reason particular employment decision liability stage trial focus often individual hiring decisions pattern discriminatory decisionmaking cooper federal reserve bank richmond quoting teamsters without explicitly mentioning portion past held title vii authorize affirmative relief individuals employer shows existence systemic discrimination effect see franks bowman transportation teamsters supra east texas motor freight system rodriguez decisions suggest proper focus claims systemic discrimination charges individual discrimination cf nlrb transportation management upholding national labor relations board identical interpretation national labor relations act contains language almost identical given plaintiff defendant bear burden proof cases one surprising dissent insists approach requires employer bear ultimate burden proof post moreover perfectly consistent say gender factor particular decision made situation viewed hypothetically fact decision made even absence discrimination thus see internal inconsistency opinion dissent perceives see post finally liability imposed employer unable prove made decision even discriminated imposition liability sex made difference outcome post adversary system party burden proving particular assertion party unable meet burden assume assertion inaccurate thus employer unable prove claim made decision absence discrimination entitled conclude gender make difference outcome nothing opinion taken suggest case must correctly labeled either pretext case case beginning district indeed expect plaintiffs often allege alternative cases discovery often necessary plaintiff know whether legitimate illegitimate considerations played part decision point proceedings course district must decide whether particular case involves mixed motives plaintiff fails satisfy factfinder likely forbidden characteristic played part employment decision may prevail proves following burdine employer stated reason decision pretextual dissent need worry evidentiary scheme used jury trial impossibly confused complex imagines see post juries long decided cases defendants raised affirmative defenses dissent fails moreover explain evidentiary scheme endorsed years ago mt healthy city bd ed doyle proved unworkable context hopelessly complicated case brought federal antidiscrimination statutes comparing description plaintiff proof offered justice opinion concurring judgment post understand concurrence suggests meaningfully different see post see inquiry described hypothetical see post seeks determine content entire set reasons decision rather shaving one reason attempt determine decision absence consideration inquiry describe thus strikes us distinctly one justice white suggestion post employer testimony probable decision absence discrimination due special credence contrary employer testimony found illegitimate factor played part decision baffling reject claim advanced price waterhouse dissenting judge district clearly erred finding beyer responsible telling hopkins problems policy board identified candidacy conclusion reasonable light testimony trial member policy board admissions committee stated doubt beyer discuss hopkins reasons placing candidacy hold beyer knew exactly problems regarding hopkins tr understand dissenters dissatisfaction district judge statements regarding failure price waterhouse sensitize partners dangers sexism post made context determining price waterhouse disclaimed reliance evaluations following judge description firm history condoning evaluations judge remarks seem us justified justice white concurring judgment view determine proper approach causation case need look opinion mt healthy city bd ed doyle mt healthy public employee rehired part exercise first amendment rights part permissible considerations rejected rule causation focused solely whether protected conduct played part substantial otherwise decision rehire grounds rule make employee better exercising constitutional rights nothing instead outlined following approach initially case burden properly placed upon respondent show conduct constitutionally protected conduct substantial factor put words motivating factor board decision rehire respondent carried burden however district gone determine whether board shown preponderance evidence reached decision respondent reemployment even absence protected conduct omitted agree justice brennan applying approach causation title vii cases departure require modification holdings texas dept community affairs burdine mcdonnell douglas green made clear cases present one different pretext cases mcdonnell douglas burdine pretext cases issue whether either illegal legal motives true motives behind decision nlrb transportation management cases however one true motive behind decision instead decision result multiple factors least one legitimate hardly said decision case departure cases inapposite ibid also disagree dissent assertion approach causation inconsistent statement burdine ultimate burden persuading trier fact defendant intentionally discriminated plaintiff remains times plaintiff indicated transportation management showing required mt healthy improperly shift plaintiff ultimate burden persuasion whether defendant intentionally discriminated see appeals required price waterhouse prove clear convincing evidence reached employment decision absence improper motive rather merely requiring proof preponderance evidence mt healthy concur judgment reversing case part remanding respect employer burden however plurality seems require least cases employer submit objective evidence result occurred absent unlawful motivation ante view however special requirement employer carry burden objective evidence case legitimate motive found ample grounds action taken employer credibly testifies action taken legitimate reasons alone ample proof even plainly case employer denies illegitimate motive first place finds illegitimate well legitimate factors motivated adverse action agree plurality employer carries burden violation title vii justice concurring judgment agree plurality facts presented case burden persuasion shift employer demonstrate preponderance evidence reached decision concerning ann hopkins candidacy absent consideration gender agree burden shift properly part liability phase litigation thus concur judgment disagreement stems plurality conclusions concerning substantive requirement causation statute broad statements regarding applicability allocation burden proof applied case evidentiary rule adopts today viewed supplement careful framework established unanimous decisions mcdonnell douglas green texas dept community affairs burdine use cases one employer created uncertainty causation knowingly giving substantial weight impermissible criterion write separately explain believe departure mcdonnell douglas standard justified circumstances presented like cases express views strong medicine requiring employer bear burden persuasion issue causation administered title vii provides pertinent part shall unlawful employment practice employer fail refuse hire discharge individual otherwise discriminate individual respect compensation terms conditions privileges employment individual race color religion sex national origin emphasis added legislative history title vii bears plain language suggests substantive violation statute occurs consideration illegitimate criterion cause adverse employment action legislative history makes clear congress attempting eradicate discriminatory actions employment setting mere discriminatory thoughts critics bill became title vii labeled thought control bill argued created punishable crime require illegal external act basis judgment cong rec remarks ervin senator case whose views plurality finds persuasive elsewhere responded man must fail something regard employment must specific external act mental act act grounds stated bill legal consequences ibid evidence congressional intent party bear burden proof issue causation considerably less clear doubt general matter congress assumed plaintiff title vii action bear burden proof elements critical case dissent points post interpretative memorandum submitted sponsors title vii indicates plaintiff civil case burden proving discrimination occurred cong rec emphasis added area tort liability whence dissent standard causation derived see post law long recognized certain civil cases leaving burden persuasion plaintiff prove causation unfair destructive deterrent purposes embodied concept duty care thus multiple causation cases breach duty established common law torts long shifted burden proof multiple defendants prove negligent actions cause plaintiff injury see summers tice cal rule applied effect defendant tortious conduct combines force unknown innocent origin produce harm plaintiff see kingston chicago granting union fire caused defendant negligence another natural origin another much greater proportions available defense burden defendant show fire set proximate cause damage see also wigmore select cases law torts two persons acts possibly sole cause harm two acts person possibly sole cause plaintiff introduced evidence one two persons one person two acts culpable defendant burden proving person act sole cause harm requiring plaintiff tort suit title vii action prove defendant breach duty cause injury generally hamper effective enforcement policies behind causes action times test demands impossible challenges imagination trier probe purely fanciful unknowable state affairs invited make estimate concerning facts concededly never existed uncertainty might happened opens door wide conjecture conjecture demanded given direction consistent policy considerations underlie controversy malone ruminations stan rev goals reflected elements disparate treatment action doubt congress considered reliance gender race making employment decisions evil senator clark put bill simply eliminates consideration color forbidden criteria decision hire promote cong rec see also remarks humphrey bill simply make illegal practice use race factor denying employment reliance factors exactly threat title vii liability meant deter main concern statute employment opportunity congress certainly blind stigmatic harm comes evaluated process treats one inferior reason one race sex decisions equal protection clause long recognized whatever final outcome decisional process inclusion race sex consideration within harms society individual see richmond croson time congress clearly conditioned legal liability determination consideration illegitimate factor caused tangible employment injury kind individual disparate treatment plaintiff shown preponderance evidence illegitimate criterion substantial factor adverse employment decision deterrent purpose statute clearly triggered importantly evidentiary matter reasonable factfinder conclude absent explanation employer discriminatory motivation caused employment decision employer yet shown violator neither entitled presumption good faith concerning employment decisions accorded employers facing circumstantial evidence discrimination policies behind statute evidentiary principles developed analogous area causation law torts suggest point employer may required convince factfinder despite smoke fire given recognition principles cases discussed remedial phase class action disparate treatment cases class established discrimination protected group essentially employer standard practice harm group injunctive relief appropriate individual members class liability phase litigation complete see dillon coles misleading speak additional proof required individual class member relief part damage phase evidence actually element liability portion case omitted class already demonstrated rule illegitimate factors considered employer decisions burden shifts employer demonstrate individual applicant denied employment opportunity legitimate reasons teamsters see also franks bowman transportation individual members class action disparate treatment case stand much position ann hopkins strong showing employer done exactly title vii forbids connection employer illegitimate motivation injury individual plaintiff unclear point calling upon employer show despite consideration illegitimate factors individual plaintiff hired promoted event hardly seems unfair contrary substantive command statute fact individual plaintiff shown illegitimate factor played substantial role decision case proved class member teamsters type action latter receives benefit burden shift defendant based likelihood illegitimate criterion factor individual employment decision tension franks teamsters line decisions individual disparate treatment cases cited dissent see post logically dissent view member disparate treatment class action show causation individual employment decision since element pattern practice proof entire class statutorily mandated plaintiff bear burden proof issue throughout litigation properly drawn distinction elements class action claim individual disparate treatment claim see cooper federal reserve bank richmond suggest wholesale transposition rules one setting decisions teamsters franks indicate recognition presumptions shifting burden persuasion based evidentiary probabilities policies behind statute alien title vii jurisprudence moreover placing burden defendant case prove decision justified legitimate reasons consistent interpretation constitutional guarantee equal protection like disparate treatment plaintiff one asserts governmental action violates equal protection clause must show victim intentional discrimination burdine compare post kennedy dissenting washington davis alexander louisiana dealt criminal defendant allegation members race invidiously excluded grand jury indicted violation equal protection clause addition statistical evidence presented petitioner case noted state selection procedures racially neutral consideration race decisional process established held burden proof shifts state rebut presumption unconstitutional action showing permissible racially neutral selection criteria procedures produced monochromatic result adhered similar principles arlington heights metropolitan housing development case like one presented problems motivation causation context multimember decisionmaking body authorized consider wide range factors arriving decisions arlington heights group minority plaintiffs claimed municipal governing body refusal rezone plot land allow construction integrated housing racially motivated issue causation indicated plaintiff required prove challenged action rested solely racially discriminatory purposes rarely said legislature administrative body operating broad mandate made decision motivated solely single concern even particular purpose dominant primary one fact legislators administrators properly concerned balancing numerous competing considerations courts refrain reviewing merits decisions absent showing arbitrariness irrationality racial discrimination another competing consideration proof discriminatory purpose motivating factor decision judicial deference longer justified citation omitted ii dissent summary individual disparate treatment cases date fair accurate amply demonstrates rule adopt today least change direction prior precedents see post indeed emphasized past individual disparate treatment action plaintiff bears burden persuasion throughout litigation confined word pretext narrow definition plurality attempts pin today see ante mcdonnell douglas burdine clearly contemplated disparate treatment plaintiff show employer proffered explanation event true reason either never motivated employer employment decisions particular case mcdonnell douglas burdine assumed plaintiff bear burden persuasion attacks clearly depart framework today departure requires justification outlines carefully drawn first mcdonnell douglas dealt situation plaintiff presented direct evidence employer relied forbidden factor title vii making employment decision prima facie case established difficult prove based statistical probability number potential causes employment decision eliminated inference arises illegitimate factor fact motivation behind decision see teamsters mcdonnell douglas formula require direct proof discrimination face inferential proof employer burden deemed one production employer must articulate legitimate reason adverse employment action see furnco construction waters plaintiff must given opportunity demonstrate competent evidence presumptively valid reasons rejection fact coverup racially discriminatory decision mcdonnell douglas decision texas dept community affairs burdine also involved narrow question whether plaintiff carried onerous burden establishing prima facie case mcdonnell douglas burden persuasion shifted employer prove legitimate reason adverse employment action existed discussion teamsters arlington heights indicates think employer entitled presumption good faith direct evidence placed substantial reliance factors whose consideration forbidden title vii individual disparate treatment case cited dissent involved kind direct evidence discriminatory animus confronted postal service bd governors aikens question presented case involved challenge elements prima facie case mcdonnell douglas burdine see pet cert postal service bd governors aikens question confront today neither briefed argued apparent entire purpose mcdonnell douglas prima facie case compensate fact direct evidence intentional discrimination hard come employer burden rebutting inferential case discrimination one production mean scales weighted manner direct evidence intentional discrimination indeed one age discrimination employment act case seemed indicate mcdonnell douglas test inapplicable plaintiff presents direct evidence discrimination trans world airlines thurston see also east texas motor freight system rodriguez second facts case growing number like decided courts appeals convince evidentiary standard propose necessary make real promise mcdonnell douglas implementation employment decisions abundantly clear title vii tolerates discrimination subtle otherwise case district found number evaluations ann hopkins submitted partners firm overtly referred failure conform certain gender stereotypes factor militating election partnership supp dc district found evaluations given great weight decisionmakers price waterhouse addition district found partner responsible informing hopkins factors caused candidacy placed hold indicated professional problems solved walk femininely talk femininely wear hair styled wear jewelry omitted appeals characterized ann hopkins proved price waterhouse permitt ed stereotypical attitudes towards women play significant though unquantifiable role decision invite become partner app point ann hopkins taken proof far go proved discriminatory input decisional process proved participants process considered failure conform stereotypes credited number decisionmakers substantial factor decision ann hopkins sitting hall outside room partnership decisions made partners filed consider candidacy heard several make sexist remarks discussing suitability partnership decisionmakers exited room told one privy decisionmaking process gender major reason rejection partnership bid noted teamsters resumptions shifting burden proof often created reflect judicial evaluations probabilities conform party superior access proof one hard pressed think situation appropriate require defendant show decision justified wholly legitimate concerns moreover mounting evidence decisions lower courts respondent alone inability pinpoint discrimination precise cause injury despite shown played significant role decisional process many courts deal evidentiary issues title vii cases regular basis concluded placing risk nonpersuasion defendant situation uncertainty causation created consideration illegitimate criterion makes sense rule evidence furthers substantive command title vii see bell birmingham linen service tjoflat illogical indeed ironic hold title vii plaintiff presenting direct evidence defendant intent discriminate stringent burden proof allow defendant meet direct proof merely articulating proving legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons action particularly context professional world decisions often made collegial bodies basis largely subjective criteria requiring plaintiff prove one factor definitive cause decisionmakers action may tantamount declaring title vii inapplicable decisions see fields clark university plaintiff produced strong evidence sexist attitudes infected faculty tenure decision burden properly shifted defendant show reached decision absent discrimination thompkins morris brown college direct evidence discriminatory animus decision discharge college professor shifted burden persuasion defendant finally convinced rule shifting burden defendant plaintiff shown illegitimate criterion substantial factor employment decision conflict congressional policies embodied title vii title vii expressly provides employer need give preferential treatment employees applicants race color religion sex national origin order maintain work force balance general population see interpretive memorandum whose authoritative force noted plurality see ante specifically provides requirement title vii employer maintain racial balance work force contrary deliberate attempt maintain racial balance whatever balance may involve violation title vii maintaining balance require employer hire refuse hire basis race cong rec last term watson fort worth bank trust unanimously concluded disparate impact analysis first enunciated griggs duke power extended subjective discretionary selection processes time plurality indicated concern focus bare statistics disparate impact setting force employers adopt inappropriate prophylactic measures violation plurality went emphasize disparate impact case plaintiff may simply point statistical disparity employer work force instead plaintiff must identify particular employment practice must offer statistical evidence kind degree sufficient show practice question caused exclusion applicants jobs promotions membership protected group plurality indicated ultimate burden proving discrimination protected group caused specific employment practice remains plaintiff times believe significant differences shifting burden persuasion employer case resting purely statistical proof disparate impact setting shifting burden persuasion case like one employee demonstrated direct evidence illegitimate factor played substantial role particular employment decision first explicit consideration race color religion sex national origin making employment decisions obvious evil congress mind enacted title vii teamsters prima facie case mcdonnell douglas statistical showing imbalance involved disparate impact case may indicators discrimination functional equivalent evils congress sought eradicate employment setting second shifting burden persuasion employer situation like one creates incentive preferential treatment violation avoid bearing burden justifying decision employer need seek racial sexual balance work force rather need avoid substantial reliance forbidden criteria making employment decisions danger forcing employers engage unwarranted preferential treatment thus less dramatic setting situation faced watson far wholly illusory based misreading words statute see ante plurality appears conclude decisional process tainted awareness sex race way employer violated statute title vii thus commands burden shift employer justify decision ante plurality thus effectively reads causation requirement statute replaces affirmative defense ante view order justify shifting burden issue causation defendant disparate treatment plaintiff must show direct evidence illegitimate criterion substantial factor decision appeals noted circuits confronted question squarely consensus among title vii plaintiff demonstrated direct evidence discriminatory animus played significant substantial role employment decision burden shifts employer show decision absent discrimination app requiring plaintiff demonstrate illegitimate factor played substantial role employment decision identifies employment situations deterrent purpose title vii clearly implicated evidentiary matter plaintiff made type strong showing illicit motivation factfinder entitled presume employer discriminatory animus made difference outcome absent proof contrary employer disparate treatment plaintiff made showing burden rests employer convince trier fact likely decision absent consideration illegitimate factor employer need isolate sole cause decision rather must demonstrate illegitimate factor removed calculus sufficient business reasons induced take employment action evidentiary scheme essentially requires employer place employee position occupied absent discrimination cf mt healthy city bd ed doyle employer fails carry burden factfinder justified concluding decision made consideration illegitimate factor substantive standard liability statute satisfied thus stray remarks workplace perhaps probative sexual harassment see meritor savings bank vinson justify requiring employer prove hiring promotion decisions based legitimate criteria statements nondecisionmakers statements decisionmakers unrelated decisional process suffice satisfy plaintiff burden regard addition view testimony fiske case standing alone justify shifting burden persuasion employer race gender always play role employment decision benign sense human characteristics decisionmakers aware may comment perfectly neutral nondiscriminatory fashion example context case mere reference lady candidate might show gender played role decision means support rational factfinder inference decision made sex required ann hopkins showed direct evidence decisionmakers placed substantial negative reliance illegitimate criterion reaching decision obvious threshold standard adopt shifting burden persuasion defendant differs substantially proposed plurality plurality suggestion contrary notwithstanding see ante plurality proceeds premise words statute embody causal requirement approach plaintiff must produce evidence sufficient show illegitimate criterion substantial factor particular employment decision reasonable factfinder draw inference decision made plaintiff protected status burden proof shift defendant prove decision justified wholly legitimate considerations see also ante white concurring judgment sum concerns outlined believe deterrent purpose title vii disserved rule places burden proof plaintiffs issue causation circumstances retain supplement framework established mcdonnell douglas subsequent cases structure presentation evidence individual disparate treatment case conform general outlines established mcdonnell douglas burdine first plaintiff must establish mcdonnell douglas prima facie case showing membership protected group qualification job rejection position rejection employer continued seek applicants complainant general qualifications mcdonnell douglas plaintiff also present direct evidence discriminatory animus decisional process defendant present case including evidence legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons employment decision dissent notes framework employer every incentive convince trier fact decision lawful post citing burdine evidence received determine whether mcdonnell douglas price waterhouse framework properly applies evidence plaintiff failed satisfy price waterhouse threshold case decided principles enunciated mcdonnell douglas burdine plaintiff bearing burden persuasion ultimate issue whether employment action taken discrimination view system fair workable calibrates evidentiary requirements demanded parties goals behind statute agree dissent see post evidentiary framework propose available disparate treatment plaintiffs illegitimate consideration played substantial role adverse employment decision allocation burden proof johnson transportation agency santa clara county rested squarely analytical framework set forth mcdonnell douglas alter today odd say least evidentiary rules applicable title vii actions dependent gender skin color litigants see ante case agree plurality petitioner called upon show outcome respondent professional merit concern remand district determine whether price waterhouse shown preponderance evidence gender part process employment decision concerning ann hopkins nonetheless justice kennedy chief justice justice scalia join dissenting today manipulates existing complex rules employment discrimination cases way certain result confusion continued adherence evidentiary scheme established mcdonnell douglas green texas dept community affairs burdine wiser course creation disarray area law already difficult bench bar must dissent turning reasons disagreement disposition case important review actual holding today decision read opinions establishing limited number cases title vii plaintiffs presenting direct substantial evidence discriminatory animus may shift burden persuasion defendant show adverse employment decision supported legitimate reasons shift burden persuasion occurs plaintiff proves direct evidence unlawful motive substantial factor actually relied upon making decision ante opinion ante opinion white opinions make plain evidentiary scheme created today every case plaintiff produces evidence stray remarks workplace ante opinion brennan ante opinion plaintiff makes requisite showing burden shifts employer show legitimate employment considerations justified decision without reference impermissible motive ante opinion white ante opinion employer proof point presented reviewed evidentiary question accept plurality suggestion employer evidence need objective otherwise ordinary ante opinion white sum alters evidentiary framework mcdonnell douglas burdine closely defined set cases although justice advances thoughtful arguments change remain convinced unnecessary unwise troubling plurality rationale today decision includes number unfortunate pronouncements causation methods proof employment discrimination cases demonstrate defects plurality reasoning necessary discuss first standard causation title vii cases second burden proof plurality describes case standard causation title vii ante respectfully suggest description misleading much plurality rhetoric spent denouncing standard causation theory title vii liability plurality adopts however essentially incorporates standard importance today decision standard causation employs shift defendant burden proof plurality causation analysis misdirected clear whoever bears burden proof issue title vii liability requires finding causation see also ante opinion white ante opinion words title vii obscure part statute relevant case provides shall unlawful employment practice employer fail refuse hire discharge individual otherwise discriminate individual respect compensation terms conditions privileges employment individual race color religion sex national origin emphasis added decisions confirm title vii concerned mere presence impermissible motives directed employment decisions result motives verbal formulae used precedents synonymous causation thus said providing different insurance coverage male female employees violates statute treating employee manner person sex different newport news shipbuilding dry dock eeoc quoting los angeles dept water power manhart described relevant question whether employment decision based discriminatory criterion teamsters whether particular employment decision issue made basis impermissible factor cooper federal reserve bank richmond term cause least rigorous standard consistent approach causation precedents describe motive cause event definition make difference outcome event occurred without approaches causation often require proof cause starting point toward proof legal cause law may require cause instance proximate cause imposing liability standard less however simply represents decision impose liability without causation dean prosser puts act omission regarded cause event particular event occurred without keeton dobbs keeton owen prosser keeton law torts ed one principal reasons plurality decision may sow confusion claims title vii liability unrelated causation yet adopts standard placed burden proof causation upon employer approach conflates question whether causation must shown question shown plurality theory title vii causation ultimately consistent standard might said disagreement plurality comments cause simply academic see ante opinion white since comments seem influence decision turn part plurality analysis plurality begins noting quite unremarkable fact title vii written present tense ante unlawful fail refuse provide employment benefits basis sex failed refused done plurality claims present tense excludes inquiry relevant standard causation necessarily concerned hypothetical inquiry past event occurred absent contested motivation observation however tells us nothing particular relevance title vii cause action creates unaware federal prohibitory statute written past tense every liability determination including novel one constructed plurality necessarily concerned examination past event plurality analysis verb tense serves divert attention causation requirement made part statute phrase phrase respectfully submit embodies rather simple concept plurality labors ignore told next cause required since words mean solely ante one contends however sex must sole cause decision title vii violation separate question whether consideration sex must cause decision accepted approach causation discussed sex cause employment decision whenever either combination factors made difference decision discrimination need sole cause order liability arise merely necessary element set factors caused decision cause see mcdonald santa fe trail transportation plurality seems say since know words mean solely must mean follow matter either semantics logic plurality reliance bona fide occupational qualification bfoq provisions title vii particularly inapt bfoq provisions allow employer certain cases make employment decision conceded sex cause sex may legitimate cause employment decision gender bfoq consistent opposite command decision caused sex case justifies imposition title vii liability principle support however novel assertion violation occurred sex made difference outcome confusing aspect plurality analysis causation liability internal inconsistency plurality begins saying employer considers gender legitimate factors time making decision decision sex legitimate considerations even may say later context litigation decision gender taken account ante yet goes state employer shall liable prove even taken gender account come decision ante given language statute statements true title vii unambiguously employer makes decisions sex violated statute plurality first statement therefore appears indicate employer considers illegitimate reasons making decision violator opinion tells us employer shows decision made absent consideration sex violator second statement reconciled language title vii must decision absent consideration sex made sex words violation statute absent causation plurality description decision test adopts supports view opinion finds plaintiff standard effectively concluded illegitimate motive cause employment decision ante imposition liability sex made difference outcome ante plurality attempts reconcile internal inconsistency causation issue describing employer showing affirmative defense nothing label one found language legislative history title vii section statutory basis cause action obligated explain decisions consistent terms general themes legislative history parts statute plainly inapposite test ultimately adopted plurality may inconsistent terms see infra said plurality reasoning respect causation justice describes plurality reads causation requirement statute replaces affirmative defense ante labels aside import today decision title vii liability arise without causation certain cases plaintiff must prove presence causation defendant must prove absence ii established order proof individual title vii cases mcdonnell douglas green reaffirmed allocation texas dept community affairs burdine burdine plaintiff presents prima facie case inference discrimination arises employer must rebut inference articulating legitimate nondiscriminatory reason action final burden persuasion however belongs plaintiff burdine makes clear ultimate burden persuading trier fact defendant intentionally discriminated plaintiff remains times plaintiff see also board trustees keene state college sweeney stevens dissenting adhere established evidentiary framework provides appropriate standard individual cases today creation new set rules cases mandated statute attempt refinement provides limited practical benefits cost confusion complexity attendant risk trier fact misapprehend controlling legal principles reach incorrect decision view plurality treatment burdine cases important first state cases dispositive plurality tries reconcile approach burdine announcing applies pretext case defines case plaintiff attempts prove employer proffered explanation false ante ignores language burdine plaintiff may succeed meeting ultimate burden persuasion either directly persuading discriminatory reason likely motivated employer indirectly showing employer proffered explanation unworthy credence emphasis added first two alternative methods plaintiff meets burden persuade employment decision likely motivated discriminatory reason postal service bd governors aikens blackmun concurring plurality makes attempt address aspect cases opinions make plain burdine applies individual cases whether plaintiff offers direct proof discrimination motivated employer actions chooses indirect method showing employer proffered justification false say pretext see aikens supra lawsuit plaintiff may prove case direct circumstantial evidence plurality mistaken suggesting plaintiff case disadvantaged squeeze proof burdine framework ante acknowledged mcdonnell douglas facts necessarily vary title vii cases specification prima facie case set forth necessarily applicable every respect differing factual situations framework never intended rigid mechanized ritualistic aikens supra burdine compels employer come forward explanation decision permits plaintiff offer evidence either logical methods proof discrimination hardly framework confines plaintiff still less justification saying ultimate burden proof must employer case burdine provides orderly adequate way place inferential direct proof factfinder determination whether intentional discrimination caused employment decision regardless character evidence presented consistently held ultimate burden remains times plaintiff burdine supra aikens illustrates point evidence showed plaintiff black man far qualified white applicants promoted ahead important testimony showed person responsible promotion decisions issue made numerous derogatory comments blacks general aikens particular yet aikens reiterated case tried proof scheme burdine justice brennan justice blackmun concurred stress plaintiff prevail burdine scheme either two ways one directly persuade employment decision motivated discrimination aikens leaves doubt pretext framework burdine considered provide flexible means addressing individual claims downplaying novelty opinion plurality claims followed path prior cases path may well worn wrong forest plurality relies title vii bfoq provisions employer bears burden justifying use employment qualification see dothard rawlinson bfoq context sensible indeed necessary allocation burden definition sex cause employment decision question remaining employer justify true plurality citations pregnancy discrimination act cases ante cases question pregnancy cause disputed action pregnancy discrimination act bfoq cases tell us nothing case employer claims decision justified decision closer analogies plurality new approach found mt healthy city bd ed doyle nrlb transportation management cases decided different contexts mt healthy first amendment case involving firing teacher transportation management involved review nlrb interpretation national labor relations act transportation management decision based deference traditionally accords nlrb interpretations statutes administers see neither case therefore tells us established burdine framework continue govern order proof title vii contrast plurality justice acknowledges approach adopted today departure mcdonnell douglas standard ante although reasons supporting departure without force dispositive justice said respect title vii nothing language history purpose title vii prohibits adoption new approach ante emphasis added justice also relies analogies common law torts types title vii litigation equal protection cases analogies demonstrate shifts burden proof unprecedented law torts employment discrimination nonetheless believe continued adherence burdine framework consistent statutory mandate congress manifest concern preventing imposition liability cases discriminatory animus actually cause adverse action see ante opinion suggests affirmative showing causation required relevant portion legislative history supports view see supra limited benefits likely produced today innovation come sacrifice clarity practical application potential benefits new approach view overstated first makes clear price waterhouse scheme applicable cases plaintiff produced direct substantial proof impermissible motive relied upon making decision issue burden shift properly found apply limited number employment discrimination cases application new scheme furthermore make difference smaller subset cases practical importance burden proof risk nonpersuasion new system make difference evidence evenly balanced factfinder say either side explanation case likely true category include cases allocation burden proof dispositive complete lack evidence causation issue cf summers tice cal allocation burden dispositive evidence two negligently fired shots hit plaintiff rather price waterhouse apply cases substantial evidence reliance impermissible motive well evidence employer legitimate reasons supported action although price waterhouse system every case almost every plaintiff certain ask price waterhouse instruction perhaps basis stray remarks evidence discriminatory animus trial appellate courts therefore saddled task developing standards determining apply burden shift one new tasks generation jurisprudence meaning substantial factor courts also required make often subtle difficult distinction direct indirect circumstantial evidence lower courts long difficulty applying mcdonnell douglas burdine addition second mechanism application depends assessment credibility determination whether evidence sufficiently direct substantial likely lend clarity process presence existing mechanism distinguishes individual case tort discrimination equal protection cases justice relies distinction makes justice white assertions one need look mt healthy transportation management resolve case title vii cases area inapposite ante best hard understand confusion application dual mechanisms acute cases brought age discrimination employment act adea courts borrow title vii order proof conduct jury trials see note age discrimination employment act trial jury proposals change rev noting high reversal rate caused use title vii burden shifting jury setting perhaps cases future require bifurcated trial jury retiring first make credibility findings necessary determine whether plaintiff proved impermissible factor played substantial part decision later hearing evidence decision pretext issues alternatively perhaps trial judge unenviable task formulating single instruction jury various burdens potentially involved case believe minor refinement title vii procedures accomplished today holding justify difficulties accompany rather remain confident mcdonnell douglas framework permits plaintiff meriting relief demonstrate intentional discrimination burdine although employer bear burden persuasion burdine must offer clear reasonably specific reasons contested decision every incentive persuade trier fact decision lawful ibid suggestion employer bear burden persuasion due superior access evidence little force title vii context liberal discovery rules available litigants supplemented eeoc investigatory files ibid sum burdine framework provides sensible orderly way evaluate evidence light common experience bears critical question discrimination aikens continue govern order proof title vii cases iii ultimate question every individual case whether discrimination caused particular decision issue plurality comments respect district findings case however potentially misleading plurality notes district based liability determination expert evidence evaluations respondent hopkins based unconscious sex stereotypes fact price waterhouse failed disclaim reliance comments conducted partnership review district also based liability price waterhouse failure make partners sensitive dangers stereotyping discourage comments tainted sexism investigate comments determine whether influenced stereotypes supp dc although district version title vii liability improper today opinions think important stress title vii creates independent cause action sex stereotyping evidence use decisionmakers sex stereotypes course quite relevant question discriminatory intent ultimate question however whether discrimination caused plaintiff harm cases support suggestion failure disclaim reliance stereotypical comments violates title vii neither support creation duty sensitize dissenting judge appeals observed acceptance theories turn title vii prohibition discriminatory conduct engine rooting sexist thoughts app williams dissenting employment discrimination claims require factfinders make difficult sensitive decisions sometimes may mean finding discrimination justified even though qualified employee passed less admirable employer cases title vii protections properly extend plaintiffs means model employees justice brennan notes ante courts sit determine whether litigants nice case hopkins plainly presented strong case professional qualifications presence discrimination price waterhouse partnership process district found record sex discrimination caused adverse decision doubt reversible error cf aikens supra decision finder fact however district made plain sex discrimination cause decision place hopkins partnership candidacy hold attempts evade tough decisions erecting novel theories liability multitiered systems shifting burdens misguided iv language title vii precedents require plaintiff establish decision place candidacy hold made sex district found comments individual partners expert evidence fiske prove intentional discriminatory motive purpose ecause plaintiff considerable problems dealing staff peers say elected partnership policy board decision tainted sexually based evaluations hopkins thus failed meet requisite standard proof full trial remand case entry judgment favor price waterhouse plurality description standard hypothetical retrospective inquiry seeks determine whether asked employer moment decision reasons received truthful response one reasons applicant employee woman ante plurality discussion overdetermined causes highlights error insistence substantive standard causation title vii opinion discusses situation two physical forces move object either force acting alone moved object ante translated context title vii situation arise employer took adverse action reliance sex legitimate reasons either illegitimate legitimate reason standing alone produced action state affairs proved factfinder liability plurality test decision made illegitimate reason never considered interpretive memorandum plurality relies makes plain plaintiff civil case burden proving discrimination occurred cong rec coupled earlier definition discrimination memorandum tells us plaintiff bears burden showing impermissible motive made difference treatment plaintiff none traditional requirement plaintiff show cause plurality disregards special context affirmative action ante clear possible courts held suit challenging plan question plan validity need reached unless plaintiff shows plan cause adverse decision see mcquillen wisconsin education association council cert denied presumably easier plaintiff show consideration race sex pursuant plan substantial factor decision need move question plan validity moreover structure burdens proof title vii suits consistent might expected given identical statutory language involved today decision suggests plaintiffs longer bear burden showing plans illegal see johnson transportation agency santa clara county plaintiff engages services susan fiske trouble showing sex discrimination played part decision price waterhouse chose object fiske testimony late stage constrained accept think plurality enthusiasm fiske conclusions unwarranted fiske purported discern stereotyping comments gender neutral overbearing abrasive without knowledge comments basis reality without met speaker subject expert fiske qualifications seems plain woman overbearing arrogant abrasive observations effect necessarily discounted product stereotyping analysis like prevail federal courts employer base adverse action woman attributes app williams dissenting today opinions read requiring factfinders credit testimony based type analysis see also ante opinion