McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green

95 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. Seventh Circuit to Plaintiffs: Here's Your Burden of Proof

    LittlerAmy Ryder WentzSeptember 1, 2016

    8 To this point, the court overturned the precedent in its jurisdiction that (1) requires plaintiffs to come forward with a “convincing mosaic” of evidence, treating this as an additional legal standard; and/or (2) separates “direct” from “indirect” evidence and subjects the two to different legal standards.9 Initial commentators on Ortiz speculate that the Seventh Circuit is attempting to abolish the McDonnell Douglas framework. But on this point, the appellate court explained: The burden-shifting framework created by McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S. Ct. 1817, 36 L. Ed. 2d 668 (1973), sometimes is referred to as an “indirect” means of proving employment discrimination. Today's decision does not concern McDonnell Douglas or any other burden-shifting framework, no matter what it is called as a shorthand.

  2. California Supreme Court Provides Clarity on Which Standard to Use for Retaliation Cases

    Stoel Rives - World of EmploymentFebruary 3, 2022

    On January 27, 2022, the California Supreme Court in Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc., No. S266001, 2022 WL 244731 (Cal. Jan. 27, 2022), addressed the issue of which standard courts must use when analyzing retaliation claims brought under California Labor Code section 1102.5.In requesting that the California Supreme Court answer this question, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recognized that California courts have taken a scattered approach in adjudicating 1102.5 retaliation claims. Most courts use the burden-shifting framework established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (McDonnell-Douglas test), whereas others have taken more convoluted approaches. Nevertheless, the Ninth Circuit determined that the outcome of the plaintiff in Lawson’s appeal depended on which was the correct approach, so it was necessary that the California Supreme Court resolve this issue before the appeal could proceed.Ultimately, the California Supreme Court held that moving forward, California courts must use the standard set forth in Labor Code section 1102.6 to adjudicate a section 1102.5 whistleblower claim, once again making it more difficult for employers to defend against employment claims brought by former employees.In this article, we summarize the facts and holding of the Lawson decision and discuss the practical effect this decision has on employers in California.Summary of the Facts of Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc.In Lawson, plaintiff Wallen Lawson worked as a territory manager for defendant PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc., a paint and coatings manufactu

  3. California Supreme Court Expands Protections for Employees Claiming to be "Whistleblowers"

    Hinshaw & Culbertson - Employment Law ObserverJeffrey Edward HallFebruary 2, 2022

    This decision increases the evidentiary burden on defendants seeking summary judgment. It also clarifies that the proof paradigm in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), does not apply to California whistleblower claims. McDonnell Douglas established a three-step burden-shifting framework in discrimination cases.

  4. Retaliation: So Many Laws, So Little Time (Speaking of Time, Is Temporal Proximity All a Plaintiff Needs?)

    Liebert Cassidy WhitmoreMelanie M. PoturicaJune 30, 2011

    [v]Clark County School Dist. v. Breeden (Breeden) (2001) 532 U.S. 268, 272.[vi]Davis v. Chevron, USA, Inc. (5th Cir. 1994) 14 F.3d 1082, 1085 (alterations in original, quotations and citations omitted).[vii]McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973) 411 U.S. 792, 802; see also Miller v. Fairchild Industries, Inc. (9th Cir. 1986) 797 F.2d 727, 731-32 (Stating "[t]he order and allocation of proof for Title VII suits outlined in [McDonnell], also covers actions for [retaliation].").[viii]McDonnel Douglas Corp., supra, 411 U.S. at 802.

  5. Velez v. Thermo King de Puerto Rico, No. 08-1320 (1st Cir. Oct. 16. 2009)

    Outten & Golden LLPOctober 16, 2009

    The First Circuit becomes the latest U.S. Court of Appeals to reject defense efforts to expand Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., 129 S. Ct. 2343 (2009), beyond its banks.Velez v. Thermo King de Puerto Rico, No. 08-1320 (1st Cir. Oct. 16. 2009): Continuing in the vein of yesterday's post, the First Circuit issues a published opinion signalling its intention to continue to use the McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), method of proof in ADEA cases.The district court granted summary judgment, holding as a matter of law that the employee was fired for a valid reason that the plaintiff could not rebut, i.e., accepting, and selling for personal gain, promotional items given to him by vendors, such as knives. The plaintiff had also been under investigation for stealing paint, knives and other equipment, but the employer did not immediately advance this as the reason for his termination.

  6. Maryland's New Whistleblower Retaliation Standard

    Baker DonelsonNovember 9, 2023

    e personnel action contributed to the protected conduct. The employer, on the other hand, maintained that the plain language of the HCWWPA – which states, in pertinent part, that an employer "may not take or refuse to take any personnel action as reprisal against an employee because the employee [engages in protected activity]" – imposes a but-for causation standard that requires a plaintiff to prove that "but for" their disclosure of the employer's wrongdoing, they would not have been fired or otherwise subjected to an adverse personnel action by the employer.The Supreme Court agreed with the employer and affirmed the Appellate Court's entry of summary judgment in August 2023, holding that: (1) the HCWWPA requires proof of but-for causation; and (2) the plaintiff's termination was not protected under the HCWWPA. In reaching that conclusion, the court applied the three-step evidentiary burden-shifting framework established by the U.S. Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), and since adopted in Maryland for employment retaliation claims.Applying this framework to the facts of the case, the Supreme Court concluded that the employee's HCWWPA claim failed because she did not present evidence to genuinely dispute the employer showing that it terminated her for reasons unrelated to her protected disclosure. In other words, the court ruled that the employee failed to show she would not have been fired "but for" her protected disclosure. In reaching this decision, the court highlighted the following undisputed evidence: (1) that the employee had not yet made her protected disclosure at the time her supervisors made the decision to terminate her; and (2) that the ultimate termination decision-makers were unaware of the employee's protected disclosure at the time they authorized the decision to terminate her.Key TakeawaysThis case sets an important precedent not only for retaliation claims brought under the HCWWPA specifically but potentially for claims brought

  7. Littler Lightbulb – April Employment Appellate Roundup

    LittlerMay 2, 2023

    court noted that “[t]hough there may be circumstances where evidence reveals that ‘good fit’ is a subterfuge for discrimination or retaliation, it is also a perfectly innocuous comment that an organization’s collaborative goals would not be furthered, and in fact might be retarded, by a particular employee.” In this case, the court found, the college decided not to renew plaintiff’s contract based on evidence of her conflicts with multiple faculty members, excessive fraternization with students and favoritism toward some students, and inadequate preparation for classes, not because of her medical conditions or in retaliation for seeking an accommodation. As to her termination, the court found that the college took action due to legitimate concerns that the plaintiff was potentially violent and a threat to campus safety.Employment Decision Based on Poor Interview Scores Not Evidence of Discrimination. Applying the burden-shifting framework set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802–03 (1973) to an age discrimination case under the Missouri Human Rights Act, the Eighth Circuit found the company’s decision to promote younger candidates who scored better in interviews than did plaintiff was not evidence of age discrimination. In Bonomo v. Boeing Co., 63 F.4th 736 (8th Circuit 2023), the plaintiff, who was 62, applied for promotions to two similar, more senior-level positions. In both cases, employees who were in their 30s and received the highest scores in structured interviews were selected for the positions. In both cases the hiring managers indicated that the structured interviews were the only factors considered in making the selection decisions.The plaintiff filed suit alleging age discrimination and claimed, among other things, that the exclusive reliance on the structured interviews to make the hiring decisions was evidence of discrimination. The Eighth Circuit disagreed. Stating that “the presence of subjectivity in employee evaluations is itself not grounds for chal

  8. Interpreting SCOTUS Precedent, Seventh Circuit Unanimously Rejects the EEOC's Claim That Wal-Mart's Light Duty Program Discriminated Against Pregnant Workers

    Hinshaw & Culbertson - Employment Law ObserverAimee DelaneyAugust 23, 2022

    While there is no magic numerical formula to the third step in the Young test, where a large percentage of similarly situated employees with restrictions stemming from a variety of causes who are not pregnant are being accommodated with light duty work while pregnant employees are being denied, the employer will likely find itself in a situation much closer to UPS than to Wal-Mart.EEOC v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P., No. 3:18-cv-00783-bbc (7th Cir. 2022).McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973).

  9. Equal Pay Litigation Trends Update: Recent Attempts To Clarify Burden-Shifting Framework Applied To Equal Pay Act Litigation

    Seyfarth Shaw LLPJune 23, 2022

    The question that has arisen in some recent EPA cases is whether the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to establish pretext, or whether the burden continues to rest with the employer. Many courts have adhered to what is known as the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework, named after the seminal Supreme Court case, McDonnell Douglas v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). Under that framework, the burden does shift back to the plaintiff, who then has the obligation to establish pretext.

  10. California Supreme Court Establishes Employee-Friendly Standard for Whistleblower Retaliation Cases

    K&L Gates LLPSaman RejaliFebruary 15, 2022

    On 27 January 2022, the California Supreme Court answered a question certified to it by the Ninth Circuit: whether whistleblower claims under California Labor Code section 1102.5 are governed by the burden-shifting test for proof of discrimination claims established by the U.S. Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), or the more employee-friendly standard set forth in Labor Code section 1102.6. The Court unanimously held that the Labor Code section 1102.6 standard applies.