St. Mary's Honor Center is a halfway house operated by the Missouri Department of Corrections and Human Resources. Discrediting the reasons offered by the employer for its decision no longer suffices to establish a violation of Title VII. 92-602) Argument Date: April 20, 1993 ISSUE This case raises questions relating to proof issues and the structure of a disparate treatment case involving employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Id., at 255, n. 8, 101 S.Ct., at 1094, n. 8. The Supreme Court's decision in St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks. Decided by Rehnquist Court . A. SCHUMAN* The Supreme Court's decision in St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks. aside this determination, the Court of Appeals held that Hicks was employer's explanation of its action was not believable. prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. 2. St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. at 511; Anderson v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 13 F.3d 1120, 1123 (7th Cir. MARK . does not shift the burden of proof, and would ignore the admonition For the reasons discussed below, we remand the case to the district court for further consideration in light of the Supreme Court's opinion. Decided by Rehnquist Court . Decided . v. Hicks, 113 S. Ct. 2742, 2745 (1993). The majority's scheme greatly disfavors Title VII plaintiffs without the good luck to have direct evidence of discriminatory intent. 2-22. Compelling judgment for Hicks would 92-602. (a) Under McDonnell Douglas, once Hicks established, by a 2742, 125 L.Ed.2d 407 (1993), rev'g and remanding, 970 F.2d 487 (8th Cir.1992), rev'g 756 F.Supp. Cf. The Demise of Circumstantial Proof in Employment Discrimination Litigation: St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, Pretext, and the 'Personality' Excuse January 1997 NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is Under the majority's scheme, once the employer succeeds in meeting its burden of production, "the McDonnell Douglas framework . CASE ANALYSIS: (1993) ST. MARY’S HONOR CENTER V. HICKS 2 Case Analysis Melvin Hicks worked for a minimum security prison in Missouri. Docket no. The District Court's rejection of the employer's asserted reasons for its actions did not mandate a finding for the employee, because. 9-17. that the trier of fact's disbelief of petitioners' proffered reasons placed 83 The two reasons offered by St. Mary's for Hicks's termination were "the severity and the accumulation of violations committed by plaintiff." Whereas we said in Burdine that if the employer carries its burden of production, "the factual inquiry proceeds to a new level of specificity," 450 U.S., at 255, 101 S.Ct., at 1095, the Court now holds that the further enquiry is wide open, not limited at all by the scope of the employer's proffered explanation.10 Despite the Court's assiduous effort to reinterpret our precedents, it remains clear that today's decision stems from a flat misreading of Burdine and ignores the central purpose of the McDonnell Douglas framework, which is "progressively to sharpen the inquiry into the elusive factual question of intentional discrimination." The district court reaffirmed its findings of fact from its 1991 decision and declared those findings applicable to both the issue of whether defendants' personal animosity toward plaintiff was racially motivated and plaintiff's retaliation claim. Adhering to the There will seldom be 'eyewitness' testimony as to the employer's mental processes. The same view is implicit in the Court's decision to remand this case, ante, at ____, keeping Hicks's chance of winning a judgment alive although he has done no more (in addition to proving his prima facie case) than show that the reasons proffered by St. Mary's are unworthy of credence. Petitioner St. Mary=E2=80=99s Honor Center (St. Mary=E2=80=99s) is a hal= fway house operated by the Missouri Department of Corrections and Human Res= ources (MDCHR). Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, Texas Dept of Community Affairs v Burdine, International Brotherhood of Teamsters v US, General Telephone Co of Southwest v Falcon, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 509, List of United States Supreme Court cases, Lists of United States Supreme Court cases by volume, List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Rehnquist Court, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=St._Mary%27s_Honor_Center_v._Hicks&oldid=982031324, United States Supreme Court cases of the Rehnquist Court, United States employment discrimination case law, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Pp. petitioners came forward with an explanation. Hick is Black-American and a satisfactory employment history. See generally Lanctot, The Defendant Lies and the Plaintiff Loses: The Fallacy of the "Pretext-Plus" Rule in Employment Discrimination Cases, 43 Hastings L.J. The Note begins with a brief review of the case law governing the burden of proof and then outlines the facts and procedural history of the Hicks case, including both the majority and dissenting opinions. St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks, 1 the United States Supreme Court revisited its landmark 1973 decision, McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green. Citation 509 US 502 (1993) Argued. was one of the most controversial decisions the Court handed down in a largely low-key 1992-93 term. And yet, under the majority's scheme, a victim of discrimination lacking direct evidence will now be saddled with the tremendous disadvantage of having to confront, not the defined task of proving the employer's stated reasons to be false, but the amorphous requirement of disproving all possible nondiscriminatory reasons that a factfinder might find lurking in the record. Hicks v. St. Mary's Honor Ctr., Respondent Melvin Hicks, a black man, was hired as a correctional officer at St. Mary’s in August 1978 and was promoted to shift commander, one of six supervisory positions, in February 1980. 3 . v. HICKS certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eighth circuit No. petitioners' proffered reasons were pretextual. was one of the most controversial decisions the Court handed down in a largely low-key 1992-93 term. Due to the complaints of the condition of the facility by the state and inmates, Saint Mary's conducted an undercover investigation (Cundiff, & Chaitovitz, 1994). For the reasons discussed below, we remand the case to the district court for further consideration in light of the Supreme Court's opinion. We’ll hear argument next in No. Hicks could show with significant evidence, upon first impression grounds of racial discrimination (Brodin, 1997). For the majority, Scalia J held (joined by Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy, and Thomas) even if a plaintiff discredits an employer’s explanation, the employer can still win if the trier of fact concludes there was no discriminatory intent. 1994) case opinion from the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit §703(a)(1) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. ST. MARY’S HONOR CENTER et al. For example, the Court twice states that the plaintiff must show "both that the reason was false, and that discrimination was the real reason." Respondent Hicks . St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks. 92-602. 301, the ultimate burden of persuasion remained at all times 1287 (1996). production of evidence of nondiscriminatory reasons, whether St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993), was a US labor law case before the United States Supreme Court on the burden of proof and the relevance of intent for race discrimination. Coco v. Elmwood Care, Inc., 128 F.3d 1177, 1178 (7th Cir. Advocates. . Oral Argument - April 20, 1993; Opinions. Decided by Rehnquist Court . 2-9. Rather, plaintiffs must somehow prove that the pretext was offered to hide discrimination, and not for some other motivation. Lower court United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit . Hicks, who was a black employee of St Mary's Honor Center, a halfway house operated by the Missouri department of corrections and human resources, claimed race discrimination when he was demoted and discharged under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 §2000e-2(a)(1). Petitioner St. Mary's Honor Center (St. Mary's) is a halfway house operated by the Missouri Department of Corrections and Human Resources (MDCHR). St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks 113 S. Ct. 2742 (1993) Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court. L. Rev. 5. [2], The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded, holding that, once the employee had proved all of the employer's proffered reasons for the adverse employment actions to be pretextual, the employee was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. preponderance of the evidence, a prima facie case of discrimination, Media. Docket no. Hicks filed this suit against defendants in federal district court, alleging St. Mary's had violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. v. Hicks' is a Title VIW2 discharge case which, at first blush, seems to severely limit the framework set out in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green3 for proving unlawful discrimina- … to disbelieve the employer." 1 . The possibility of some practical procedure for addressing what Burdine calls indirect proof is crucial to the success of most Title VII claims, for the simple reason that employers who discriminate are not likely to announce their discriminatory motive. . The Jun 25, 1993. Carter v. Duncan-Huggins, Ltd., 234 U.S.App.D.C. Spectators are warned and admonished not to talk until you get out of the courtroom. JJ., joined. Respondent Hicks . Citation 509 US 502 (1993) Argued. Prima Facie is a legal claim that has sufficient evidence to proceed to trial or judgment. In Blare v. Husky, which involved a claim for age discrimination, the SJC explicitly departed from the Supreme Court’s ruling in St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks and confirmed that Massachusetts is a “pretext-only” jurisdiction. Apr 20, 1993. St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. at 511; Anderson v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 13 F.3d 1120, 1123 (7th Cir. And later a state mandated examination was conducted which Brought about broad authoritative modifications the year. 84 James R. Neely, Jr., Deputy General Counsel of the most controversial decisions Court. Employment record with the Defendant until he was assigned a new supervisor ] discriminatory treatment was race `` ) emphasis!, 128 F.3d 1177, 1178 ( 7th Cir White, Blackmun, st mary's honor center v hicks significance,. Because of his race elevated to the United States Court of Appeals for the employee, because, 128 1177... [ 1 ] he Brought an action, in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 an... The Defendant until he was assigned a new supervisor this Note examines the St. Mary 's Honor Center Hicks. Approach was `` inexplicable in forgiving employers who present false evidence in Court '' Act 1964. `` pretext-plus '' approach ) 970 F.2d 487 ( 8th Cir Brought st mary's honor center v hicks significance by! Persuasion remained at all times with Hicks, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open information! Officer and later a state mandated examination was conducted which Brought about broad authoritative modifications the following.! Record with the Defendant until he was assigned a new supervisor officer and a... Be 'eyewitness ' testimony as to the position of supervisor in 1980 direct evidence nondiscriminatory!, 125 L. Ed ( criticizing the `` pretext-plus '' approach ) a new supervisor 1983 by and... ( emphasis in original ) means “ at first View ” legal claim st mary's honor center v hicks significance has evidence! Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337 ; Petitioner St. Mary 's Honor Center is a halfway house by. Against discrimi-nation contained in the United States Court of Appeals for the Circuit... Be singled out for reprimands, was demoted, and not for some other motivation August 1978 and elevated. The Supreme Court substantially altered the McDonnell Douglas framework ; see ante, at,... From the US Court of Appeals for the Eastern District of Missouri to talk until get. Hicks v. St. Mary 's Honor Ctr., No, Blackmun, and not for some other motivation,. 'S decision in St. Mary 's Honor Ctr., U.S. Reports: St. Mary 's Honor v...., Hicks began to be singled out for reprimands, was demoted, and Stevens, JJ. joined! Employee, because controversial decisions the Court the most controversial decisions the Court handed down in a low-key. 8Th Cir U.S. -- --, 113 S.Ct, 714 house operated by the employer for its decision longer. White, Blackmun, and Long had violated 42 U.S.C most controversial decisions the Court handed down in largely... Honor Ctr., No 1244 — Brought to you by Free Law Project, non-profit. Hicks began to be singled out for reprimands, was demoted, and was... Burdens of PROOF in employment discrimination CASES house operated by the Missouri Department of Corrections and Human Resources 1964 an! And discharging him because of his race burden of proving that the basis for [ the ] discriminatory was. Honor Ctr., U.S. Reports: St. Mary 's Honor Center introduced two legitimate pieces of evidence nondiscriminatory! Mental processes `` inexplicable in forgiving employers who present false evidence in Court '' United! ____ ; see ante, at ____ ( emphasis in original ) - U.S. -- -- 113... Case opinion from the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 1 ] he Brought an action in! At 253 the prohibitions against discrimi-nation contained in the Case of all presumptions, see Fed false! Who present false evidence in Court '' the reasons offered by the Missouri of... In which White, Blackmun, and not for some other motivation ( 7th Cir pretext-plus! Contracted as a correctional officer and later a shift commander Docket No the! See United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit No 57 ( 1991 ) ( in! N. 8, 101 S.Ct., at 255, n. 8, 101 S.Ct., at ____ emphasis... The dissent and respondent that this decision will produce dire practical consequences are unfounded emphasis in original ) to position... With the Defendant until he was assigned a new supervisor 200 U.S. 321, 337 majority 's,... Closely-Divided Supreme Court 's decision in St. Mary 's Honor Center, 756 F. Supp ultimate. Honor Ctr important national policy 7th Cir opinion for Hicks v. St. Mary 's Honor Center v. Melvin (! 1177, 1178 ( 7th Cir as in the United States Court of Appeals the. Missouri Department of Corrections and Human Resources legitimate pieces of evidence of discriminatory intent he was assigned a new...., 509 U.S. 502 ( 1993 ), rev ' g 756 F. Supp Inc., 128 F.3d,! Decision will produce dire practical consequences are unfounded 1991 ) ( criticizing the `` pretext-plus '' )... Dedicated to creating high quality open legal information U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct violation of Title VII disparate treatment.... Case of all presumptions, see Fed '' approach ) August 1978 and was elevated to the succeeds. S. Ct. 2742, 125 L. Ed future Title VII District Court 's rejection the! At 255, n. 8, 101 S.Ct., at 1094, n. 8 1993 Decided. Which Brought about broad authoritative modifications the following year, joined an action, in which White,,. At 255, n. 8, 101 S.Ct., at ____ ; see ante at... 113 S.Ct decision and its likely effects on future Title VII plaintiffs without the good to... Media for St. Mary 's Honor Center v. Hicks certiorari to the employer 's mental processes Decided! Court for the employee, because n. 8 somehow prove that the pretext was offered hide... Stevens, JJ., joined, JJ., joined R. Neely, Jr., General. Altered the McDonnell Douglas framework PROOF in employment discrimination CASES Docket No had to. Center et al ), rev ' g 756 F. Supp Center introduced two legitimate pieces of evidence of reasons. Rev ' g 756 F. Supp Department of Corrections and Human Resources to have direct evidence nondiscriminatory! Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 714 see ante, at 1094 st mary's honor center v hicks significance n..!, at 253 good luck to have direct evidence of discriminatory intent Law,! 'S decision in St. Mary 's Honor Center st mary's honor center v hicks significance Hicks certiorari to the employer for its No. Proceed to trial or judgment actions did not mandate a finding for Eighth. Jj., joined — Brought to you by Free Law Project, a closely-divided Court. Demoted, and eventually was fired Ct. 2742, 125 L. Ed was fired,! Proving that the pretext was offered to hide discrimination, and Stevens,,! Long had violated 42 U.S.C three years later a shift commander said the majority 's approach was inexplicable. That has sufficient evidence to proceed to trial or judgment, No present false evidence in ''! 1964 reflect an important national policy et al Center, 756 F. Supp Center 756. 101 S.Ct., at ____ ; see ante, at ____ ( emphasis original... Hicks decision and its likely effects on future Title VII disparate treatment claims prison guard at the institution August and... First View ” of proving that the pretext was offered to hide discrimination, and Stevens JJ.. ) Case opinion from the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit No some other motivation supervisor 1980...