St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks

509 U.S. 502 (1993) Supreme Court of the United States 1993-06-25

civil; bench trial for employer, CA8 reversed (judgment for employee as a matter of law once reasons disbelieved); certiorari by employer (result: remanded)

Facts

  1. 2 Protected trait: race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy/abortion), or national origin satisfied conceded
    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.
  2. 2 Protected trait: race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy/abortion), or national origin satisfied conceded
    Petitioners do not challenge the District Court’s finding that respondent satisfied the minimal requirements of such a prima facie case (set out in McDonnell Douglas, supra, at 802) by proving (1) that he is black, (2) that he was qualified for the position of shift commander, (3) that he was demoted from that position and ultimately discharged, and (4) that the position remained open and was ultimately filled by a white man.
  3. 3 Qualified for the position / meeting legitimate employer expectations satisfied conceded
    Prior to these personnel changes respondent had enjoyed a satisfactory employment record, but soon thereafter became the subject of repeated, and increasingly severe, disciplinary actions.
  4. 4 Adverse employment action affecting compensation, terms, conditions, privileges, or status satisfied conceded
    He was later demoted from shift commander to correctional officer for his failure to ensure that his subordinates entered their use of a St. Mary’s vehicle into the official logbook on March 19, 1984.
  5. 4 Adverse employment action affecting compensation, terms, conditions, privileges, or status satisfied conceded
    Finally, on June 7, 1984, he was discharged for threatening Powell during an exchange of heated words on April 19.
  6. 6 Employer's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason (McDonnell Douglas step 2) satisfied conceded
    Respondent does not challenge the District Court’s finding that petitioners sustained their burden of production by introducing evidence of two legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for their actions: the severity and the accumulation of rules violations committed by respondent.
  7. 6 Employer's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason (McDonnell Douglas step 2) satisfied conceded
    By producing evidence (whether ultimately persuasive or not) of nondiscriminatory reasons, petitioners sustained their burden of production, and thus placed themselves in a “better position than if they had remained silent.”
  8. 6 Employer's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason (McDonnell Douglas step 2) satisfied conceded
    In the nature of things, the determination that a defendant has met its burden of production (and has thus rebutted any legal presumption of intentional discrimination) can involve no credibility assessment.