texas
dept
community
affairs
burdine
argued
december
decided
march
respondent
filed
suit
federal
district
alleging
inter
alia
termination
employment
petitioner
predicated
gender
discrimination
violation
title
vii
civil
rights
act
district
found
testimony
petitioner
sufficiently
rebutted
respondent
allegation
gender
discrimination
decision
terminate
employment
appeals
reversed
finding
holding
defendant
title
vii
case
bears
burden
proving
preponderance
evidence
existence
legitimate
nondiscriminatory
reasons
employment
action
also
must
prove
objective
evidence
hired
better
qualified
plaintiff
testimony
petitioner
carry
either
burdens
held
plaintiff
title
vii
case
proved
prima
facie
case
employment
discrimination
defendant
bears
burden
explaining
clearly
nondiscriminatory
reasons
actions
pp
set
forth
mcdonnell
douglas
green
basic
allocation
burdens
order
presentation
proof
title
vii
case
follows
first
plaintiff
burden
proving
preponderance
evidence
prima
facie
case
discrimination
second
plaintiff
succeeds
proving
prima
facie
case
burden
shifts
defendant
articulate
legitimate
nondiscriminatory
reason
employee
rejection
third
defendant
carry
burden
plaintiff
must
opportunity
prove
preponderance
evidence
legitimate
reasons
offered
defendant
true
reasons
pretext
discrimination
defendant
need
persuade
actually
motivated
proffered
reasons
sufficient
defendant
evidence
raises
genuine
issue
fact
whether
discriminated
plaintiff
accomplish
defendant
must
clearly
set
forth
introduction
admissible
evidence
reasons
plaintiff
rejection
pp
appeals
erred
requiring
petitioner
prove
preponderance
evidence
existence
nondiscriminatory
reasons
terminating
respondent
required
much
required
mcdonnell
douglas
supra
progency
placed
petitioner
burden
persuading
convincing
objective
reasons
preferring
chosen
applicant
respondent
limiting
defendant
evidentiary
obligation
burden
production
unduly
hinder
plaintiff
pp
appeals
also
erred
requiring
petitioner
prove
objective
evidence
person
hired
qualified
respondent
plaintiff
task
demonstrate
similarly
situated
employees
treated
equally
appeals
rule
require
employer
show
plaintiff
objective
qualifications
inferior
person
selected
effect
conclude
discriminated
appeals
views
also
read
requiring
employer
hire
minority
female
applicant
whenever
person
objective
qualifications
equal
white
male
applicant
title
vii
obligate
employer
accord
preference
rather
employer
discretion
choose
among
equally
qualified
candidates
provided
decision
based
upon
unlawful
criteria
pp
powell
delivered
opinion
unanimous
gregory
wilson
assistant
attorney
general
texas
argued
cause
pro
hac
vice
petitioner
brief
mark
white
attorney
general
john
fainter
first
assistant
attorney
general
lonny
zwiener
assistant
attorney
general
paul
gavia
hubert
gill
argued
cause
filed
brief
respondent
robert
williams
douglas
mcdowell
filed
brief
equal
employment
advisory
council
amicus
curiae
urging
reversal
justice
powell
delivered
opinion
case
requires
us
address
nature
evidentiary
burden
placed
upon
defendant
employment
discrimination
suit
brought
title
vii
civil
rights
act
et
seq
narrow
question
presented
whether
plaintiff
proved
prima
facie
case
discriminatory
treatment
burden
shifts
defendant
persuade
preponderance
evidence
legitimate
nondiscriminatory
reasons
challenged
employment
action
existed
petitioner
texas
department
community
affairs
tdca
hired
respondent
female
january
position
accounting
clerk
public
service
careers
division
psc
psc
provided
training
employment
opportunities
public
sector
unskilled
workers
hired
respondent
possessed
several
years
experience
employment
training
promoted
field
services
coordinator
july
supervisor
resigned
november
year
respondent
assigned
additional
duties
although
applied
supervisor
position
project
director
position
remained
vacant
six
months
psc
funded
completely
department
labor
department
seriously
concerned
inefficiencies
psc
february
department
notified
executive
director
tdca
fuller
terminate
psc
following
month
tdca
officials
assisted
respondent
persuaded
department
continue
funding
program
conditioned
upon
psc
reforming
operations
among
agreed
conditions
appointment
permanent
project
director
complete
reorganization
psc
staff
consulting
personnel
within
tdca
fuller
hired
male
another
division
agency
project
director
reducing
psc
staff
fired
respondent
along
two
employees
retained
another
male
walz
professional
employee
division
undisputed
respondent
maintained
application
position
project
director
requested
remain
tdca
respondent
soon
rehired
tdca
assigned
another
division
agency
received
exact
salary
paid
project
director
psc
subsequent
promotions
received
kept
salary
responsibility
commensurate
received
appointed
project
director
respondent
filed
suit
district
western
district
texas
alleged
failure
promote
subsequent
decision
terminate
predicated
gender
discrimination
violation
title
vii
bench
trial
district
held
neither
decision
based
gender
discrimination
relied
testimony
fuller
employment
decisions
necessitated
commands
department
labor
based
consultation
among
trusted
advisers
nondiscriminatory
evaluation
relative
qualifications
individuals
involved
testified
three
individuals
terminated
work
well
together
tdca
thought
eliminating
problem
improve
psc
efficiency
accepted
explanation
rational
effect
found
evidence
decisions
promote
terminate
respondent
prompted
gender
discrimination
appeals
fifth
circuit
reversed
part
held
district
implicit
evidentiary
finding
male
hired
project
director
better
qualified
position
respondent
clearly
erroneous
accordingly
affirmed
district
finding
respondent
discriminated
promoted
appeals
however
reversed
district
finding
fuller
testimony
sufficiently
rebutted
respondent
prima
facie
case
gender
discrimination
decision
terminate
employment
psc
reaffirmed
previously
announced
views
defendant
title
vii
case
bears
burden
proving
preponderance
evidence
existence
legitimate
nondiscriminatory
reasons
employment
action
defendant
also
must
prove
objective
evidence
hired
promoted
better
qualified
plaintiff
found
fuller
testimony
carry
either
evidentiary
burdens
therefore
reversed
judgment
district
remanded
case
computation
backpay
decision
appeals
burden
proof
borne
defendant
conflicts
interpretations
precedents
adopted
courts
appeals
granted
certiorari
vacate
fifth
circuit
decision
remand
application
correct
standard
ii
mcdonnell
douglas
green
set
forth
basic
allocation
burdens
order
presentation
proof
title
vii
case
alleging
discriminatory
treatment
first
plaintiff
burden
proving
preponderance
evidence
prima
facie
case
discrimination
second
plaintiff
succeeds
proving
prima
facie
case
burden
shifts
defendant
articulate
legitimate
nondiscriminatory
reason
employee
rejection
third
defendant
carry
burden
plaintiff
must
opportunity
prove
preponderance
evidence
legitimate
reasons
offered
defendant
true
reasons
pretext
discrimination
nature
burden
shifts
defendant
understood
light
plaintiff
ultimate
intermediate
burdens
ultimate
burden
persuading
trier
fact
defendant
intentionally
discriminated
plaintiff
remains
times
plaintiff
see
board
trustees
keene
state
college
sweeney
stevens
dissenting
see
generally
wigmore
evidence
ed
burden
persuasion
never
shifts
mcdonnell
douglas
division
intermediate
evidentiary
burdens
serves
bring
litigants
expeditiously
fairly
ultimate
question
burden
establishing
prima
facie
case
disparate
treatment
onerous
plaintiff
must
prove
proponderence
evidence
applied
available
position
qualified
rejected
circumstances
give
rise
inference
unlawful
discrimination
prima
facie
case
serves
important
function
litigation
eliminates
common
nondiscriminatory
reasons
plaintiff
rejection
see
teamsters
explained
furnco
construction
waters
prima
facie
case
raises
inference
discrimination
presume
acts
otherwise
unexplained
likely
based
consideration
impermissible
factors
establishment
prima
facie
case
effect
creates
presumption
employer
unlawfully
discriminated
employee
trier
fact
believes
plaintiff
evidence
employer
silent
face
presumption
must
enter
judgment
plaintiff
issue
fact
remains
case
burden
shifts
defendant
therefore
rebut
presumption
discrimination
producing
evidence
plaintiff
rejected
someone
else
preferred
legitimate
nondiscriminatory
reason
defendant
need
persuade
actually
motivated
proffered
reasons
see
sweeney
supra
sufficient
defendant
evidence
raises
genuine
issue
fact
whether
discriminated
plaintiff
accomplish
defendant
must
clearly
set
forth
introduction
admissible
evidence
reasons
plaintiff
rejection
explanation
provided
must
legally
sufficient
justify
judgment
defendant
defendant
carries
burden
production
presumption
raised
prima
facie
case
rebutted
factual
inquiry
proceeds
new
level
specificity
placing
burden
production
defendant
thus
serves
simultaneously
meet
plaintiff
prima
facie
case
presenting
legitimate
reason
action
frame
factual
issue
sufficient
clarity
plaintiff
full
fair
opportunity
demonstrate
pretext
sufficiency
defendant
evidence
evaluated
extent
fulfills
functions
plaintiff
retains
burden
persuasion
must
opportunity
demonstrate
proffered
reason
true
reason
employment
decision
burden
merges
ultimate
burden
persuading
victim
intentional
discrimination
may
succeed
either
directly
persuading
discriminatory
reason
likely
motivated
employer
indirectly
showing
employer
proffered
explanation
unworthy
credence
see
mcdonnell
douglas
iii
reversing
judgment
district
discharge
respondent
psc
unrelated
sex
appeals
adhered
two
rules
developed
elaborate
defendant
burden
proof
first
defendant
must
prove
preponderence
evidence
legitimate
nondiscriminatory
reasons
discharge
existed
see
turner
texas
instruments
second
satisfy
burden
defendant
must
prove
hired
somehow
better
qualified
plaintiff
words
comparative
evidence
needed
emphasis
original
see
east
romine
appeals
misconstrued
nature
burden
mcdonnell
douglas
progeny
place
defendant
see
part
ii
supra
stated
sweeney
employer
burden
satisfied
simply
explains
done
produc
es
evidence
legitimate
nondiscriminatory
reasons
quoting
stevens
dissenting
plain
appeals
required
much
placed
defendant
burden
persuading
convincing
objective
reasons
preferring
chosen
applicant
plaintiff
appeals
distinguished
sweeney
ground
case
held
defendant
burden
proving
absence
discriminatory
intent
distinction
slights
rationale
sweeney
cases
stated
consistently
employee
prima
facie
case
discrimination
rebutted
employer
articulates
lawful
reasons
action
satisfy
intermediate
burden
employer
need
produce
admissible
evidence
allow
trier
fact
rationally
conclude
employment
decision
motivated
discriminatory
animus
appeals
require
defendant
introduce
evidence
absence
evidence
pretext
persuade
trier
fact
employment
action
lawful
exceeds
properly
demanded
satisfy
burden
production
placed
burden
persuasion
defendant
apparently
feared
employer
need
articulate
prove
legitimate
nondiscriminatory
reason
action
may
compose
fictitious
legitimate
reasons
actions
turner
texas
instruments
supra
emphasis
original
believe
however
limiting
defendant
evidentiary
obligation
burden
production
unduly
hinder
plaintiff
first
noted
defendant
explanation
legitimate
reasons
must
clear
reasonably
specific
supra
see
loeb
textron
obligation
arises
necessity
rebutting
inference
discrimination
arising
prima
facie
case
requirement
plaintiff
afforded
full
fair
opportunity
demonstrate
pretext
second
although
defendant
bear
formal
burden
persuasion
defendant
nevertheless
retains
incentive
persuade
trier
fact
employment
decision
lawful
thus
defendant
normally
attempt
prove
factual
basis
explanation
third
liberal
discovery
rules
applicable
civil
suit
federal
supplemented
title
vii
suit
plaintiff
access
equal
employment
opportunity
commission
investigatory
files
concerning
complaint
see
eeoc
associated
dry
goods
given
factors
unpersuaded
plaintiff
find
particularly
difficult
prove
proffered
explanation
lacking
factual
basis
pretext
remain
confident
mcdonnell
douglas
framework
permits
plaintiff
meriting
relief
demonstrate
intentional
discrimination
appeals
also
erred
requiring
defendant
prove
objective
evidence
person
hired
promoted
qualified
plaintiff
mcdonnell
douglas
teaches
plaintiff
task
demonstrate
similarly
situated
employees
treated
equally
appeals
rule
require
employer
show
plaintiff
objective
qualifications
inferior
person
selected
effect
conclude
discriminated
procedural
rule
harbors
substantive
error
title
vii
prohibits
discrimination
employment
based
upon
race
sex
national
origin
broad
overriding
interest
shared
employer
employee
consumer
efficient
trustworthy
workmanship
assured
fair
neutral
employment
personnel
decisions
mcdonnell
douglas
supra
title
vii
however
demand
employer
give
preferential
treatment
minorities
women
see
weber
statute
intended
diminish
traditional
management
prerogatives
require
employer
restructure
employment
practices
maximize
number
minorities
women
hired
furnco
construction
waters
views
appeals
read
think
requiring
employer
hire
minority
female
applicant
whenever
person
objective
qualifications
equal
white
male
applicant
title
vii
obligate
employer
accord
preference
rather
employer
discretion
choose
among
equally
qualified
candidates
provided
decision
based
upon
unlawful
criteria
fact
may
think
employer
misjudged
qualifications
applicants
expose
title
vii
liability
although
may
probative
whether
employer
reasons
pretexts
discrimination
loeb
textron
supra
see
lieberman
gant
iv
summary
appeals
erred
requiring
defendant
prove
preponderance
evidence
existence
nondiscriminatory
reasons
terminating
respondent
person
retained
stead
superior
objective
qualifications
position
plaintiff
proved
prima
facie
case
discrimination
defendant
bears
burden
explaining
clearly
nondiscriminatory
reasons
actions
judgment
appeals
vacated
case
remanded
proceedings
consistent
opinion
ordered
footnotes
see
appeals
also
vacated
district
judgment
petitioner
violate
title
vii
equal
pay
provision
decision
challenged
see
lieberman
gant
jackson
steel
ambush
montgomery
county
government
fep
cases
loeb
textron
see
vaughn
westinghouse
elec
cert
pending
recognized
factual
issues
therefore
character
evidence
presented
differ
plaintiff
claims
facially
neutral
employment
policy
discriminatory
impact
protected
classes
see
mcdonnell
douglas
teamsters
mcdonnell
douglas
supra
described
appropriate
model
prima
facie
case
racial
discrimination
plaintiff
must
show
belongs
racial
minority
ii
applied
qualified
job
employer
seeking
applicants
iii
despite
qualifications
rejected
iv
rejection
position
remained
open
employer
continued
seek
applicants
persons
complainant
qualifications
instant
case
seriously
contested
respondent
proved
prima
facie
case
showed
qualified
woman
sought
available
position
position
left
open
several
months
finally
rejected
favor
male
walz
supervision
phrase
prima
facie
case
may
denote
establishment
legally
mandatory
rebuttable
presumption
also
may
used
courts
describe
plaintiff
burden
producing
enough
evidence
permit
trier
fact
infer
fact
issue
wigmore
evidence
ed
mcdonnell
douglas
made
apparent
title
vii
context
use
prima
facie
case
former
sense
evidentiary
relationship
presumption
created
prima
facie
case
consequential
burden
production
placed
defendant
traditional
feature
common
law
word
presumption
properly
used
refers
device
allocating
production
burden
james
hazard
civil
procedure
ed
omitted
see
fed
rule
evid
see
generally
wigmore
evidence
ed
cf
maguire
evidence
common
sense
common
law
usually
assessing
burden
production
helps
judge
determine
whether
litigants
created
issue
fact
decided
jury
title
vii
case
allocation
burdens
creation
presumption
establishment
prima
facie
case
intended
progressively
sharpen
inquiry
elusive
factual
question
intentional
discrimination
articulation
admitted
evidence
suffice
thus
defendant
meet
burden
merely
answer
complaint
argument
counsel
see
generally
thayer
preliminary
treatise
evidence
saying
presumption
drops
case
imply
trier
fact
longer
may
consider
evidence
previously
introduced
plaintiff
establish
prima
facie
case
satisfactory
explanation
defendant
destroys
legally
mandatory
inference
discrimination
arising
plaintiff
initial
evidence
nonetheless
evidence
inferences
properly
drawn
therefrom
may
considered
trier
fact
issue
whether
defendant
explanation
pretextual
indeed
may
cases
plaintiff
initial
evidence
combined
effective
defendant
suffice
discredit
defendant
explanation
reviewed
defendant
evidence
explained
deficiency
defendant
failed
introduce
comparative
factual
data
concerning
burdine
walz
fuller
merely
testified
discharged
retained
personnel
spring
shakeup
tdca
primarily
recommendations
subordinates
considered
walz
qualified
position
retained
fuller
failed
specify
objective
criteria
based
decision
discharge
burdine
retain
walz
stated
action
best
interest
program
friction
within
department
might
alleviated
burdine
discharge
nothing
record
indicates
whether
examined
walz
ability
work
well
others
east
found
unsubstantiated
assertions
qualification
prior
work
record
insufficient
absent
data
allow
true
comparison
individuals
hired
rejected
appeals
applied
wrong
legal
standard
evidence
occasion
decide
whether
erred
reviewing
district
finding
intentional
discrimination
clearly
erroneous
standard
federal
rule
civil
procedure
addressing
issue
case
inappropriate
district
made
findings
intermediate
questions
posed
mcdonnell
douglas