furnco
construction
waters
argued
april
decided
june
petitioner
corporation
specializes
relining
blast
furnaces
firebrick
maintains
permanent
force
bricklayers
delegates
superintendent
particular
job
task
hiring
work
force
respondents
three
black
bricklayers
sought
employment
petitioner
particular
job
two
though
fully
qualified
never
offered
employment
third
hired
long
initially
applied
job
superintendent
pursuant
industry
practice
accept
applications
jobsite
hired
bricklayers
knew
experienced
competent
recommended
similarly
skilled
respondents
brought
suit
petitioner
claiming
employment
discrimination
violation
title
vii
civil
rights
act
district
held
inter
alia
respondents
proved
case
discrimination
mcdonnell
douglas
green
petitioner
hiring
practices
justified
business
necessity
required
safe
efficient
operation
petitioner
business
appeals
reversed
holding
respondents
made
prima
facie
case
employment
discrimination
mcdonnell
douglas
petitioner
effectively
rebutted
disagreeing
district
finding
petitioner
hiring
practices
justified
business
necessity
appeals
devised
hiring
procedure
whereby
petitioner
take
written
applications
inquiry
qualifications
experience
check
evaluate
compare
claims
qualifications
experience
bricklayers
superintendent
already
acquainted
thereby
allowing
petitioner
consider
qualifications
minority
applicants
held
appeals
erred
treatment
nature
evidence
necessary
rebut
prima
facie
case
mcdonnell
douglas
substituting
judgment
proper
hiring
practices
employer
claims
hiring
practices
violate
title
vii
pp
appeals
justified
concluding
matter
law
respondents
made
prima
facie
case
discrimination
mcdonnell
douglas
went
awry
apparently
equating
prima
facie
showing
ultimate
finding
fact
discriminatory
refusal
hire
title
vii
imposition
hiring
method
enabling
employer
consider
perhaps
hire
minority
employees
finds
support
either
nature
prima
facie
case
title
vii
purpose
courts
may
impose
remedy
employer
least
violation
title
vii
proved
none
proved
reasoning
either
district
appeals
pp
appeals
also
appears
improperly
concluded
mcdonnell
douglas
prima
facie
showing
made
statistics
offered
petitioner
show
work
force
racially
balanced
totally
irrelevant
question
motive
mcdonnell
douglas
showing
equivalent
factual
finding
discrimination
simply
proof
actions
taken
employer
discriminatory
animus
inferred
experience
proved
absence
explanation
likely
actions
based
impermissible
considerations
employer
therefore
must
allowed
latitude
introduce
evidence
bearing
motive
thus
although
petitioner
statistics
sufficient
demonstrate
conclusively
actions
discriminatorily
motivated
district
entitled
consider
racial
mix
work
force
making
determination
motivation
appeals
likewise
give
similar
consideration
proof
proceedings
pp
rehnquist
delivered
opinion
burger
stewart
white
blackmun
powell
stevens
joined
marshall
filed
opinion
concurring
part
dissenting
part
brennan
joined
post
joel
kaplan
argued
cause
petitioner
briefs
zachary
fasman
alvin
glick
judson
miner
argued
cause
respondents
brief
charles
barnhill
jack
greenberg
james
nabrit
iii
peter
sherwood
eric
schnapper
barry
goldstein
briefs
amici
curiae
filed
solicitor
general
mccree
assistant
attorney
general
days
brian
landsberg
robert
reinstein
abner
sibal
et
al
robert
williams
frank
morris
equal
employment
advisory
council
justice
rehnquist
delivered
opinion
respondents
three
black
bricklayers
sought
employment
petitioner
furnco
construction
two
three
never
offered
employment
third
employed
long
initially
applied
upon
adverse
findings
entered
bench
trial
district
northern
district
illinois
held
respondents
proved
claim
either
disparate
treatment
theory
mcdonnell
douglas
green
disparate
impact
theory
griggs
duke
power
appeals
seventh
circuit
concluding
mcdonnell
douglas
respondents
made
prima
facie
case
effectively
rebutted
reversed
judgment
district
granted
certiorari
consider
important
questions
raised
case
regarding
exact
scope
prima
facie
case
mcdonnell
douglas
nature
evidence
necessary
rebut
case
concluded
appeals
erred
treatment
latter
question
reverse
remand
proceedings
consistent
opinion
facts
case
serious
dispute
petitioner
furnco
employer
within
meaning
title
vii
civil
rights
act
supp
specializes
refractory
installation
steel
mills
particularly
rehabilitation
relining
blast
furnaces
called
trade
firebrick
furnco
however
maintain
permanent
force
bricklayers
rather
hires
superintendent
specific
job
delegates
task
securing
competent
work
force
august
furnco
contracted
interlake
reline
one
blast
furnaces
joseph
dacies
job
superintendent
furnco
since
placed
charge
job
given
attendant
hiring
responsibilities
accept
applications
jobsite
instead
hired
persons
knew
experienced
competent
type
work
persons
recommended
similarly
skilled
hired
first
four
bricklayers
white
two
successive
days
august
two
september
september
hired
first
black
bricklayer
september
hired
bricklayers
black
september
employed
another
black
september
payroll
black
included
number
october
hired
bricklayers
black
including
respondent
smith
worked
dacies
previously
applied
jobsite
somewhat
earlier
respondents
samuels
nemhard
hired
though
fully
qualified
also
attempted
secure
employment
appearing
jobsite
gate
total
worked
interlake
job
worked
black
bricklayers
many
remaining
facts
found
district
inferences
drawn
therefrom
dispute
parties
none
expressly
found
appeals
clearly
erroneous
district
elaborated
length
critical
necessity
insuring
experienced
highly
qualified
firebricklayers
employed
improper
untimely
work
result
substantial
losses
interlake
forced
shut
furnace
lay
employees
relining
job
furnco
paid
work
fixed
price
fixed
time
period
addition
might
shoddy
work
slow
work
process
also
might
necessitate
costly
future
maintenance
work
attendant
loss
production
employee
layoffs
diminish
furnco
reputation
ability
secure
similar
work
future
perhaps
even
create
serious
safety
hazards
leading
explosions
like
app
pet
cert
considerations
justified
furnco
refusal
engage
training
hire
gate
hiring
process
provide
adequate
method
matching
qualified
applications
job
requirements
assuring
applicants
sufficiently
skilled
capable
furthermore
evidence
policies
practices
pretext
exclude
black
bricklayers
otherwise
illegitimate
disproportionate
impact
effect
black
bricklayers
late
late
bricklayers
relevant
labor
force
minority
group
members
see
cfr
et
seq
mentioned
furnco
interlake
job
worked
black
bricklayers
considerations
following
established
practice
industry
firebricklayers
hired
dacies
persons
known
experienced
competent
type
work
others
hired
recommended
skilled
type
work
general
foreman
employee
black
another
furnco
superintendent
area
furnco
general
manager
john
wright
wright
instructed
dacies
employ
far
possible
least
black
bricklayers
policy
due
furnco
plan
insure
black
bricklayers
employed
furnco
cook
county
numbers
substantially
excess
percentage
local
union
also
recommended
effort
show
good
faith
dacies
hire
several
specific
bricklayers
previously
filed
discrimination
suit
furnco
negotiations
settlement
recently
broken
see
supra
factual
findings
district
concluded
respondents
failed
make
title
vii
claim
doctrine
griggs
duke
power
furnco
policy
hiring
gate
racially
neutral
face
showing
disproportionate
impact
effect
app
pet
cert
also
held
respondents
failed
prove
case
discrimination
mcdonnell
douglas
green
app
pet
cert
entirely
clear
whether
thought
respondents
failed
make
prima
facie
case
discrimination
mcdonnell
douglas
see
app
pet
cert
left
doubt
thought
furnco
hiring
practices
policies
justified
business
necessity
required
safe
efficient
operation
furnco
business
used
pretext
exclude
negroes
thus
even
prima
facie
case
made
effectively
rebutted
plaintiffs
entirely
failed
establish
furnco
employment
practices
interlake
job
discriminated
basis
race
constituted
retaliatory
conduct
defendant
proven
required
direct
evidence
furnco
proven
beyond
reasonable
doubt
engage
either
racial
discrimination
retaliatory
conduct
employment
practices
regard
bricklayers
interlake
job
ii
agree
appeals
proper
approach
analysis
contained
mcdonnell
douglas
supra
also
think
appeals
justified
concluding
matter
law
respondents
made
prima
facie
case
discrimination
mcdonnell
douglas
case
held
plaintiff
make
prima
facie
claim
showing
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
omitted
think
appeals
went
awry
however
apparently
equating
prima
facie
showing
mcdonnell
douglas
ultimate
finding
fact
discriminatory
refusal
hire
title
vii
two
quite
different
difference
direct
bearing
proper
resolution
case
appeals
read
opinion
thought
furnco
hiring
procedures
must
reasonably
related
achievement
legitimate
purpose
also
must
method
allows
employer
consider
qualifications
largest
number
minority
applicants
think
imposition
second
requirement
simply
finds
support
either
nature
prima
facie
case
purpose
title
vii
central
focus
inquiry
case
always
whether
employer
treating
people
less
favorably
others
race
color
religion
sex
national
origin
teamsters
supra
method
suggested
mcdonnell
douglas
pursuing
inquiry
however
never
intended
rigid
mechanized
ritualistic
rather
merely
sensible
orderly
way
evaluate
evidence
light
common
experience
bears
critical
question
discrimination
prima
facie
case
mcdonnell
douglas
raises
inference
discrimination
presume
acts
otherwise
unexplained
likely
based
consideration
impermissible
factors
see
teamsters
supra
willing
presume
largely
know
experience
often
people
act
totally
arbitrary
manner
without
underlying
reasons
especially
business
setting
thus
legitimate
reasons
rejecting
applicant
eliminated
possible
reasons
employer
actions
likely
employer
generally
assume
acts
reason
based
decision
impermissible
consideration
race
prima
facie
case
understood
light
opinion
mcdonnell
douglas
apparent
burden
shifts
employer
merely
proving
based
employment
decision
legitimate
consideration
illegitimate
one
race
prove
need
prove
pursued
course
enable
achieve
business
goal
allow
consider
employment
applications
title
vii
prohibits
goal
work
force
selected
proscribed
discriminatory
practice
impose
duty
adopt
hiring
procedure
maximizes
hiring
minority
employees
dispel
adverse
inference
prima
facie
showing
mcdonnell
douglas
employer
need
articulate
legitimate
nondiscriminatory
reason
employee
rejection
dangers
embarking
course
charted
appeals
requires
businesses
adopt
perceives
best
hiring
procedures
nowhere
evident
record
case
record
reveal
suggested
hiring
procedure
work
satisfactorily
also
nothing
record
indicate
less
haphazard
arbitrary
subjective
furnco
method
appeals
criticized
deficient
exactly
reasons
courts
generally
less
competent
employers
restructure
business
practices
unless
mandated
congress
attempt
say
course
proof
justification
reasonably
related
achievement
legitimate
goal
necessarily
ends
inquiry
plaintiff
must
given
opportunity
introduce
evidence
proffered
justification
merely
pretext
discrimination
noted
mcdonnell
douglas
supra
evidence
might
take
variety
forms
appeals
although
stating
disagreement
district
conclusion
employer
hiring
practices
legitimate
nondiscriminatory
reason
refusing
hire
respondents
premised
disagreement
view
discussed
rejected
conclude
practices
pretext
discrimination
different
practices
enabled
employer
least
consider
perhaps
hire
minority
employees
courts
may
impose
remedy
employer
least
violation
title
vii
proved
none
reasoning
either
district
appeals
appeals
also
critical
petitioner
effort
employ
statistics
type
case
matter
free
doubt
appears
thought
mcdonnell
douglas
prima
facie
showing
made
statistics
racially
balanced
work
force
totally
irrelevant
question
motive
see
undoubtedly
correct
view
matter
mcdonnell
douglas
prima
facie
showing
equivalent
ultimate
finding
trier
fact
original
rejection
applicant
racially
motivated
racially
balanced
work
force
immunize
employer
liability
specific
acts
discrimination
said
teamsters
district
appeals
found
upon
substantial
evidence
company
engaged
course
discrimination
continued
well
effective
date
title
vii
company
later
changes
hiring
promotion
policies
little
comfort
victims
earlier
discrimination
erase
previous
illegal
conduct
obligation
afford
relief
suffered
mcdonnell
douglas
prima
facie
showing
equivalent
factual
finding
discrimination
however
rather
simply
proof
actions
taken
employer
infer
discriminatory
animus
experience
proved
absence
explanation
likely
actions
bottomed
impermissible
considerations
prima
facie
showing
understood
manner
employer
must
allowed
latitude
introduce
evidence
bears
motive
proof
work
force
racially
balanced
contained
disproportionately
high
percentage
minority
employees
wholly
irrelevant
issue
intent
issue
yet
decided
say
proof
absolutely
probative
value
determining
whether
otherwise
unexplained
rejection
minority
applicants
discriminatorily
motivated
thus
although
agree
appeals
case
proof
neither
sufficient
conclusively
demonstrate
furnco
actions
discriminatorily
motivated
district
entitled
consider
racial
mix
work
force
trying
make
determination
motivation
appeals
likewise
give
similar
consideration
proffered
statistical
proof
proceedings
case
iii
parties
also
press
upon
large
number
alternative
theories
liability
defense
none
directly
addressed
appeals
read
opinion
given
present
posture
case
however
think
matters
still
preserved
review
best
decided
appeals
first
instance
accordingly
decline
address
original
matter
judgment
appeals
reversed
case
remanded
proceedings
consistent
opinion
ordered
footnotes
respondents
attempted
introduce
study
conducted
late
local
union
matched
members
names
race
effort
show
percentage
union
membership
black
study
concluded
approximately
union
members
black
district
excluded
evidence
study
conducted
two
years
furnco
completed
job
app
pet
cert
appeals
thought
rejection
evidence
abuse
discretion
dealing
merits
rely
racial
proportions
labor
force
remand
case
permit
introduction
testimony
appeals
also
noted
event
respondents
suffered
prejudice
refusal
admit
study
demonstrated
discrimination
study
showed
membership
union
black
evidence
demonstrated
worked
black
bricklayers
furnco
set
goal
black
bricklayers
individuals
hired
black
according
district
program
initiated
furnco
following
job
performed
charges
racial
discrimination
hiring
filed
several
black
bricklayers
claims
apparently
still
pending
appeal
illinois
courts
merits
parallel
federal
action
remain
adjudicated
see
app
pet
cert
batiste
furnco
construction
district
also
found
certain
plaintiffs
never
attempted
apply
work
interlake
fired
hired
valid
reasons
insubordination
poor
workmanship
app
pet
cert
appeals
concluding
district
findings
clearly
erroneous
affirmed
judgment
particular
plaintiffs
rulings
challenged
stated
historical
inequality
treatment
black
workers
seems
us
establish
prima
facie
racial
discrimination
refuse
consider
qualifications
black
job
seeker
hiring
approved
list
containing
names
white
bricklayers
else
qualified
black
applicants
able
overcome
racial
imbalance
particular
craft
result
past
discrimination
petition
certiorari
set
three
questions
whether
seventh
circuit
reversing
judgment
district
erred
finding
irrelevant
issue
racial
discrimination
hiring
statistics
demonstrating
hiring
highly
skilled
bricklayers
employer
hired
negroes
percentage
far
excess
statistical
presence
relevant
labor
force
whether
may
find
employer
guilty
racial
discrimination
employment
due
alleged
disparate
treatment
hiring
without
finding
discriminatory
intent
motive
whether
hiring
practice
shown
result
disparate
impact
treatment
prospective
minority
employees
found
district
justified
business
necessity
legitimate
business
reasons
may
found
racially
discriminatory
appeals
merely
subjective
appeals
substitutes
judgment
district
constitutes
legitimate
business
reasons
pet
cert
case
involve
employment
tests
dealt
griggs
duke
power
albemarle
paper
moody
particularized
requirements
height
weight
specifications
considered
dothard
rawlinson
pattern
practice
case
like
teamsters
note
case
raise
questions
regarding
exactly
sort
requirements
employer
impose
upon
particular
job
furnco
conceded
purposes
respondents
qualified
every
sense
thus
respect
mcdonnell
douglas
prima
facie
case
question
places
issue
whether
refusal
consider
respondents
applications
gate
based
upon
legitimate
nondiscriminatory
reasons
therefore
permissible
respondents
example
argue
regardless
propriety
furnco
general
refusal
hire
gate
general
policy
hiring
bricklayers
known
superintendent
referred
insider
foreman
another
bricklayer
dacies
particular
method
hiring
discriminatory
thus
general
hiring
practice
though
perhaps
legitimate
abstract
discriminatorily
applied
case
used
rebut
prima
facie
case
brief
respondents
particular
respondents
argue
evidence
proved
dacies
hired
list
prepared
allegedly
included
competent
firebricklayers
worked
fact
included
white
firebricklayers
worked
exclusion
list
competent
blacks
worked
respondents
smith
samuels
discriminatory
thus
used
rebut
respondents
prima
facie
case
furnco
hand
vigorously
disputes
dacies
hired
list
hiring
process
neatly
broken
various
components
respondents
like
argues
even
people
dacies
familiar
white
dacies
made
concerted
effort
speak
people
familiar
competent
black
bricklayers
hired
large
number
black
bricklayers
fact
argues
furnco
statistics
indicate
hired
disproportionately
large
number
blacks
thus
clearly
indicating
list
certainly
exclusive
source
potential
employees
even
white
disputes
notion
furnco
dacies
way
put
sort
ceiling
maximum
number
blacks
willing
hire
asserts
absolutely
nothing
record
support
conclusion
district
made
findings
support
respondents
view
evidence
appeals
mentioned
existence
list
read
opinion
expressly
relying
point
either
rather
read
opinion
found
respondents
made
prima
facie
case
mcdonnell
douglas
reasons
outlined
text
furnco
failed
rebut
prima
facie
case
remand
respondents
course
free
pursue
contentions
properly
preserved
justice
marshall
justice
brennan
joins
concurring
part
dissenting
part
well
established
title
vii
claims
employment
discrimination
race
may
arise
two
different
ways
teamsters
individual
may
allege
subjected
disparate
treatment
race
victim
facially
neutral
practice
disparate
impact
racial
group
today
concludes
appeals
correct
treating
case
controlled
mcdonnell
douglas
green
mcdonnell
douglas
plaintiff
establishes
prima
facie
case
employment
discrimination
disparate
treatment
showing
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
omitted
appeals
properly
held
respondents
made
prima
facie
case
employment
discrimination
mcdonnell
douglas
respondents
established
prima
facie
case
question
whether
petitioner
carried
burden
proving
respondents
rejected
basis
legitimate
nondiscriminatory
considerations
however
failed
properly
address
question
instead
focused
hiring
practices
petitioner
might
employ
therefore
agree
must
remand
case
appeals
address
appropriate
standards
whether
petitioner
rebutted
respondents
prima
facie
showing
disparate
treatment
also
agree
remand
appeals
address
theories
liability
respondents
presented
see
ante
title
vii
claim
facially
neutral
employment
practice
actually
falls
harshly
one
racial
group
thus
disparate
impact
group
cases
establish
different
way
proving
claim
see
teamsters
supra
dothard
rawlinson
general
electric
gilbert
albemarle
paper
moody
griggs
duke
power
set
griggs
duke
power
establish
prima
facie
case
claim
plaintiff
need
show
employer
discriminatory
intent
need
demonstrate
particular
practice
actuality
operates
exclude
negroes
plaintiff
established
disparate
impact
practice
burden
shifts
employer
show
practice
manifest
relationship
employment
question
touchstone
business
necessity
practice
must
shown
necessary
safe
efficient
job
performance
survive
title
vii
challenge
dothard
rawlinson
supra
principle
practice
limiting
jobs
prior
experience
working
industry
particular
person
hear
jobs
word
mouth
invalid
practice
actuality
impacts
harshly
group
protected
title
vii
unless
practice
justified
business
necessity
nothing
today
opinion
inconsistent
approach
prior
decisions
must
dissent
however
apparent
decision
see
ante
foreclose
remand
litigation
griggs
question
whether
petitioner
hiring
practices
disparate
impact
respondents
claim
petitioner
practice
hiring
list
previously
worked
foreman
foreclosed
negroes
consideration
vast
majority
jobs
although
foreman
also
hired
considerable
number
negroes
methods
respondents
assert
use
methods
augment
representation
negroes
work
force
answer
whether
primary
hiring
practice
discriminatory
clear
employer
relieved
responsibility
past
discriminatory
practices
merely
undertaking
affirmative
action
obtain
proportional
representation
work
force
said
teamsters
reaffirms
today
company
later
changes
hiring
promotion
policies
little
comfort
victims
earlier
discrimination
erase
previous
illegal
conduct
obligation
afford
relief
suffered
ante
therefore
least
open
question
whether
hiring
workers
primarily
list
past
employees
griggs
violate
title
vii
list
contains
negroes
company
uses
additional
methods
hiring
increase
numbers
negroes
hired
today
apparently
assumes
appeals
affirmed
district
findings
petitioner
hiring
practice
disparate
impact
agree
assumption
appeals
disposed
case
mcdonnell
douglas
analysis
occasion
address
findings
district
pertaining
disparate
impact
although
appeals
discuss
griggs
opinion
read
discussion
merely
rejecting
petitioner
argument
defeat
respondents
mcdonnell
douglas
claim
showing
work
force
large
percentage
negro
members
express
view
issue
whether
respondents
claim
prevail
facts
presented
since
question
presently
us
believe
respondents
opportunity
make
claim
foreclosed
course
leaves
open
remand
issue
whether
furnco
use
list
violated
title
vii
theory
see
ante