AND · 42usc2000e-2:employer-reason
(formerly `variant legitimate-nondiscriminatory-reason`) Articulation of a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason through admissible evidence McDonnell Douglas step 2: once a prima facie case is established, the burden of production shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse action.
Exact element source
because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national originSource:
docroot/ir/usc/title42.jsonl#title42_sec2000e-2; Unicode character offsets [320:395] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7b026a9ac957c5491602d868578271db8730b4c98650f1a4007b2e7430194c8b.Routes and case patterns
| Route | Definition | Merits instance blocks | Distinct merits cases | Examples (up to 3 cases per count group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unclassified route provisional; provisional (1 case) | no definition yet | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | Used only in non-merits blocks (1). Excluded context examples:Ginger v. District of Columbia — 477 F. Supp. 2d 41 (2007) · United States District Court for the District of Columbia · 2007 — not reached · basis not recorded (42usc2000e-2: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · not counted |
| attendance provisional; 2 observed cases | The employer's stated reason is absence or job abandonment. | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 1 | Doe v. C.A.R.S Protection Plus, Inc. — 527 F.3d 358 (2008) · United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2008 — satisfied · triable (42usc2000e-2: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted Breech v. Alabama Power Co. — 962 F. Supp. 1447 (1997) · United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama · 1997 — satisfied · triable (42usc2000e-2: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · applied/alternative · not counted |
| misconduct provisional; 3 observed cases | The employer's stated reason is rule violation or misconduct. | 2 Satisfied 2; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 2 | Luceus v. Rhode Island — 923 F.3d 255 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · conceded (42usc2000e-2: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks — 509 U.S. 502 (1993) · Supreme Court of the United States · 1993 — satisfied · conceded (42usc2000e-2: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted Glenn v. Raymour — 832 F. Supp. 2d 539 (2011) · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania · 2011 — satisfied · conceded (42usc2000e-2: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · applied/alternative · not counted |
| neutral-policy provisional; provisional (1 case) | The employer's stated reason is a general policy or formula applied to everyone in a category. | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | Used only in non-merits blocks (1). Excluded context examples:Spencer v. VIRGINIA STATE UNIVERSITY — 919 F.3d 199 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · conceded (42usc2000e-2: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/alternative · not counted |
| performance-or-fit provisional; 2 observed cases | The employer's stated reason is poor performance, style, or lack of fit. | 2 Satisfied 2; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 1 | Hiatt v. Colorado Seminary — 858 F.3d 1307 (2017) · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2017 — satisfied · conceded (42usc2000e-2: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted Hiatt v. Colorado Seminary — 858 F.3d 1307 (2017) · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2017 — satisfied · conceded (42usc2000e-2: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted Turner v. Barber-Scotia College — 604 F. Supp. 1450 (1985) · United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina · 1985 — satisfied · proved (42usc2000e-2: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · applied/alternative · not counted |
| relative-qualifications provisional; 3 observed cases | The employer's stated reason is that the plaintiff was less qualified or scored lower in a selection. | 3 Satisfied 3; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 3 | Henderson v. Mass. Bay Transp. Auth. — 384 F. Supp. 3d 199 (2019) · United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts · 2019 — satisfied · conceded (42usc2000e-2: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted Mawakana v. Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of the Dist. of Columbia — 926 F.3d 859 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · conceded (42usc2000e-2: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted Mayorga v. Merdon — 928 F.3d 84 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · conceded (42usc2000e-2: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted |
| sufficiency-of-articulation provisional; provisional (1 case) | Whether the stated reason is clear and specific enough to meet the burden of production. | 1 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 0 | 1 | Figueroa v. Pompeo — 923 F.3d 1078 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit · 2019 — not · law (42usc2000e-2: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ginger v. District of Columbia — 477 F. Supp. 2d 41 (2007) · United States District Court for the District of Columbia · 2007 — not reached (42usc2000e-2: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Employer's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason (McDonnell Douglas step 2) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits claim: (a)(1); 2000e-3(a) MPD's reasons for the reorganization (supervision, workload, bite exposure, seniority spread) are recited as disputed but the court never reaches step 2 on the discrimination claim. | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| Glenn v. Raymour — 832 F. Supp. 2d 539 (2011) · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania · 2011 — satisfied · conceded (42usc2000e-2: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Employer's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason (McDonnell Douglas step 2) | satisfied Excluded from merits counts applied / alternative basis: conceded; claim: (a)(1) | threat-to-fight-coworker | From Hazeldine’s office, Hazeldine, Mirth, and Corson observed Glenn following Faust, flailing his arms, and yelling the words “pussy” and “faggot” at Faust.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_832.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/832/0539-01; Unicode character offsets [5244:5401] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ad682cd3ab80d3bbd67d0ed1b42af8b4626a1b1756981872f0895f0ffadff61f.Mirth then asked if Glenn had told Faust to “step outside,” as Faust had alleged, and Glenn admitted that he had.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_832.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/832/0539-01; Unicode character offsets [6526:6639] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ad682cd3ab80d3bbd67d0ed1b42af8b4626a1b1756981872f0895f0ffadff61f.Rob Mirth documented the reason for Glenn’s termination — “creating a hostile work environment and making threats to another associate” — in a “Disciplinary Counseling Form” on the same day as the incident.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_832.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/832/0539-01; Unicode character offsets [31510:31716] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ad682cd3ab80d3bbd67d0ed1b42af8b4626a1b1756981872f0895f0ffadff61f.Raymours’ articulated reason is legitimate and non-discriminatory, and Glenn does not dispute this point.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_832.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/832/0539-01; Unicode character offsets [31760:31865] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ad682cd3ab80d3bbd67d0ed1b42af8b4626a1b1756981872f0895f0ffadff61f. |
| Henderson v. Mass. Bay Transp. Auth. — 384 F. Supp. 3d 199 (2019) · United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts · 2019 — satisfied · conceded (42usc2000e-2: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Employer's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason (McDonnell Douglas step 2) | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: conceded; claim: (a)(1) | second-lowest-interview-score-of-twenty-candidates | Henderson received the second-lowest score of the twenty candidates with a 61 and 56.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_384.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/384/0199-01; Unicode character offsets [8540:8625] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f2ca6c3947bf244a4721dd31600d039f6edeee5495b8fbf1162bb88bd7df3405.Ultimately, because Higgins and Melchionda received the highest scores in the interview, the selection committee recommended hiring them in mid-January 2013.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_384.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/384/0199-01; Unicode character offsets [8852:9009] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f2ca6c3947bf244a4721dd31600d039f6edeee5495b8fbf1162bb88bd7df3405.This nondiscriminatory justification satisfies the MBTA's burden of production.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_384.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/384/0199-01; Unicode character offsets [17959:18038] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f2ca6c3947bf244a4721dd31600d039f6edeee5495b8fbf1162bb88bd7df3405. |
| Turner v. Barber-Scotia College — 604 F. Supp. 1450 (1985) · United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina · 1985 — satisfied · proved (42usc2000e-2: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Employer's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason (McDonnell Douglas step 2) | satisfied Excluded from merits counts applied / alternative basis: proved; claim: (a) Made "assuming arguendo" a prima facie case. | burden-of-production/subjective-lack-of-institutional-fit | Turner and Goetzman, she contends, failed to serve as integral parts of that community effort after the aborted union drive.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_604.jsonl#/f-supp/604/1450-01; Unicode character offsets [21390:21514] (end exclusive); SHA-256 43ff772c2e3fbfe3210fd8995743b1d10c89d6d34fc9ed5d5ad773f37cb94da8.The Court concludes, however, that considering BSC’s unique situation and perspective, the reasons it has articulated are legitimate and have rebutted any inference of discrimination.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_604.jsonl#/f-supp/604/1450-01; Unicode character offsets [29006:29189] (end exclusive); SHA-256 43ff772c2e3fbfe3210fd8995743b1d10c89d6d34fc9ed5d5ad773f37cb94da8. |
| Breech v. Alabama Power Co. — 962 F. Supp. 1447 (1997) · United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama · 1997 — satisfied · triable (42usc2000e-2: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Employer's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason (McDonnell Douglas step 2) | satisfied Excluded from merits counts applied / alternative basis: triable; claim: (a)(1),(c)(3),(m); 2000e(j); 2000e-3(a) Second ground, assuming a prima facie case. Note the "neutral" reason is itself the religiously motivated absence; the court treats that tension under the accommodation theory, not under pretext. | unexcused-absences-under-progressive-discipline | The stated reason for his discharge was his continued failure to report for work.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_962.jsonl#/f-supp/962/1447-01; Unicode character offsets [15509:15590] (end exclusive); SHA-256 c9d3cf4a8e3b5373cb13844fbe0d43429324dce0876d20c5fdba3f4d459c1acf.Breech had also informed APC that he intended to miss each and every shift overlapping with his sabbath if he could not arrange a shift swap or vacation day.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_962.jsonl#/f-supp/962/1447-01; Unicode character offsets [34130:34287] (end exclusive); SHA-256 c9d3cf4a8e3b5373cb13844fbe0d43429324dce0876d20c5fdba3f4d459c1acf.the burden of production shifts to the defendant employer who must then come forth with admissible evidence that articulates a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment actionSource: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_962.jsonl#/f-supp/962/1447-01; Unicode character offsets [27358:27555] (end exclusive); SHA-256 c9d3cf4a8e3b5373cb13844fbe0d43429324dce0876d20c5fdba3f4d459c1acf.APC has produced ample evidence that it terminated Breech solely because of his four unexcused absences.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_962.jsonl#/f-supp/962/1447-01; Unicode character offsets [34025:34129] (end exclusive); SHA-256 c9d3cf4a8e3b5373cb13844fbe0d43429324dce0876d20c5fdba3f4d459c1acf. |
| Doe v. C.A.R.S Protection Plus, Inc. — 527 F.3d 358 (2008) · United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2008 — satisfied · triable (42usc2000e-2: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Employer's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason (McDonnell Douglas step 2) | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: triable; claim: (a); 2000e(k) | job-abandonment-no-call-absence | Specifically, CARS asserts that Doe was fired because neither she nor her husband called to request Friday, August 11th or the week of August 14th off from work.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_527.jsonl#/f3d/527/0358-01; Unicode character offsets [29709:29870] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7403bc10d85e1df0ad37ec6894b9137591d0949906c59e93cb1365fcf01b44bb.Unexcused absence from work is a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for terminating employment.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_527.jsonl#/f3d/527/0358-01; Unicode character offsets [29871:29968] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7403bc10d85e1df0ad37ec6894b9137591d0949906c59e93cb1365fcf01b44bb. |
| Hiatt v. Colorado Seminary — 858 F.3d 1307 (2017) · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2017 — satisfied · conceded (42usc2000e-2: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Employer's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason (McDonnell Douglas step 2) | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: conceded; claim: (a)(1); 2000e-3(a); count: demotion; subject: count=demotion | performance/loss-of-trainee-confidence-ethics-concern-and-supervisory-style | First, Dr. Fogle, Dr. Mathewson, and Dr. Shanley elected to end supervision with Dr. Hiatt.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [3772:3863] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f.Based on those conversations, Dr. Kent determined Dr. Hiatt was in an “ethical grey area.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [4616:4706] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f.Further, rather than take personal responsibility for the supervisees’ reactions, Dr. Hiatt blamed the supervi-sees’ pathologies as causing their strong reactions, including their decisions to stop supervision with her.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [5277:5496] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f.DU’s proffered reasons satisfy its burden to articulate legitimate, nondiscriminatory, and nonretaliatory reasons for the demotion.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [27136:27267] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f. |
| Hiatt v. Colorado Seminary — 858 F.3d 1307 (2017) · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2017 — satisfied · conceded (42usc2000e-2: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Employer's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason (McDonnell Douglas step 2) | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: conceded; claim: (a)(1); 2000e-3(a); count: failure to reinstate supervisory duties; subject: count=failure to reinstate supervisory duties | performance/unchanged-supervisory-style-and-negative-trainee-feedback | Based on her sessions with Dr. Hiatt, Dr. Asher opined that Dr. Hiatt “likely could return” to a supervisory role, but also noted that she was not likely to change her supervisory style.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [7207:7393] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f.In their exit interviews after she was demoted, several supervisees described “troubling interactions” with Dr. Hiatt during supervision that gave DU further reason to believe Dr. Hiatt had “very poor boundaries.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [39169:39382] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f.Once again, Dr. Hiatt does not contest these were legitimate, nondiscriminatory, and nonretaliatory reasons.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [36990:37098] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f. |
| Spencer v. VIRGINIA STATE UNIVERSITY — 919 F.3d 199 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · conceded (42usc2000e-2: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Employer's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason (McDonnell Douglas step 2) | satisfied Excluded from merits counts applied / alternative basis: conceded; claim: (a) Alternative ground: "Even if we concluded that Spencer had established a prima facie case". | nine-twelfths-of-prior-salary-for-former-administrators | In practice, the University generally paid former administrators who became professors "9/12ths" of their administrator salary.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_919.jsonl#/f3d/919/0199-01; Unicode character offsets [12128:12255] (end exclusive); SHA-256 74e2ea300edf9e56045848c314f121d888bb4136961d68cc526a9841e8ad680c.Indeed, Spencer admits that her comparators' pay during their short stints as University professors was set according to the 9/12ths practice.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_919.jsonl#/f3d/919/0199-01; Unicode character offsets [12388:12530] (end exclusive); SHA-256 74e2ea300edf9e56045848c314f121d888bb4136961d68cc526a9841e8ad680c.Here, the University satisfies this requirement through its practice of paying administrators 9/12ths of their previous salary.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_919.jsonl#/f3d/919/0199-01; Unicode character offsets [17535:17662] (end exclusive); SHA-256 74e2ea300edf9e56045848c314f121d888bb4136961d68cc526a9841e8ad680c. |
| Luceus v. Rhode Island — 923 F.3d 255 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · conceded (42usc2000e-2: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Employer's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason (McDonnell Douglas step 2) | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: conceded; claim: (a), (k) | disruptive-conduct-and-coworker-altercation | The Department's stated justification for declining to promote Luceus was her disruptive conduct in the workplace: it presented evidence that she was involved in an altercation with a coworker in which the two had to be physically separated, and that she had "a history of returning late from work breaks, refusing to collaborate with her coworkers, and posting signs in her cubicle to provoke management."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_923.jsonl#/f3d/923/0255-01; Unicode character offsets [7402:7808] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9b47ea07fd6337340e8a119cd67028f3678010fb54040f2f276021b253028d69.She does not dispute most of the Department's allegations of disruptive conduct and, indeed, explicitly acknowledges the truth of several of them.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_923.jsonl#/f3d/923/0255-01; Unicode character offsets [7938:8084] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9b47ea07fd6337340e8a119cd67028f3678010fb54040f2f276021b253028d69. |
| Figueroa v. Pompeo — 923 F.3d 1078 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit · 2019 — not · law (42usc2000e-2: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Employer's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason (McDonnell Douglas step 2) | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: law; claim: (a), (k) | subjective-promotion-precepts-with-no-explanation-of-how-applied-to-plaintiff | Accordingly, we hold that an employer at the second prong must proffer admissible evidence showing a legitimate, nondiscriminatory, clear, and reasonably specific explanation for its actions.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_923.jsonl#/f3d/923/1078-01; Unicode character offsets [38265:38456] (end exclusive); SHA-256 552900284c7a86a658a4d1c9119fc6b3761a6897adb5c1726273a8c52e4ac943.The Secretary has produced an eight-page chart outlining the Department's core precepts, and Figueroa does not dispute its admissibility.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_923.jsonl#/f3d/923/1078-01; Unicode character offsets [21750:21887] (end exclusive); SHA-256 552900284c7a86a658a4d1c9119fc6b3761a6897adb5c1726273a8c52e4ac943.The Secretary also has provided declarations from board members stating that they followed the precepts in considering Figueroa's file.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_923.jsonl#/f3d/923/1078-01; Unicode character offsets [21888:22023] (end exclusive); SHA-256 552900284c7a86a658a4d1c9119fc6b3761a6897adb5c1726273a8c52e4ac943.All we know is that the board determined Figueroa to be mid-ranked-which at most says he was not deficient in any relevant skill.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_923.jsonl#/f3d/923/1078-01; Unicode character offsets [39258:39387] (end exclusive); SHA-256 552900284c7a86a658a4d1c9119fc6b3761a6897adb5c1726273a8c52e4ac943.But none of the declarants explained what differentiated the best candidates from the rest, nor did they recall anything about why Figueroa's application was middling under the criteria.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_923.jsonl#/f3d/923/1078-01; Unicode character offsets [41117:41303] (end exclusive); SHA-256 552900284c7a86a658a4d1c9119fc6b3761a6897adb5c1726273a8c52e4ac943.Because the Secretary has failed to meet his burden of production under the McDonnell Douglas framework, we revive the disparate treatment claim.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_923.jsonl#/f3d/923/1078-01; Unicode character offsets [45524:45669] (end exclusive); SHA-256 552900284c7a86a658a4d1c9119fc6b3761a6897adb5c1726273a8c52e4ac943. |
| Mawakana v. Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of the Dist. of Columbia — 926 F.3d 859 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · conceded (42usc2000e-2: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Employer's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason (McDonnell Douglas step 2) | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: conceded; claim: (a), (m) | deficient-scholarship-for-tenure | In February 2013, the subcommittee issued its assessment of Mawakana's tenure application, concluding that his scholarship was not worthy of tenure and recommending that tenure be denied.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_926.jsonl#/f3d/926/0859-01; Unicode character offsets [1752:1939] (end exclusive); SHA-256 e41e6ee99ed9737bf3b92347c97331ec6c047d8f8abe3135d002e8a6017d03cf.It says he was denied tenure because his scholarship was deficient.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_926.jsonl#/f3d/926/0859-01; Unicode character offsets [12466:12533] (end exclusive); SHA-256 e41e6ee99ed9737bf3b92347c97331ec6c047d8f8abe3135d002e8a6017d03cf.In this case the University has proffered a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for denying Mawakana tenure.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_926.jsonl#/f3d/926/0859-01; Unicode character offsets [12356:12465] (end exclusive); SHA-256 e41e6ee99ed9737bf3b92347c97331ec6c047d8f8abe3135d002e8a6017d03cf. |
| Mayorga v. Merdon — 928 F.3d 84 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · conceded (42usc2000e-2: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Employer's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason (McDonnell Douglas step 2) | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: conceded; claim: (a) | claimed-lack-of-network-experience-and-poor-interview | instead, the panelists ranked Mayorga last of the six, in part they said because he failed during the interview to give detailed answers about his experience or skills.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_928.jsonl#/f3d/928/0084-01; Unicode character offsets [5734:5902] (end exclusive); SHA-256 73316afd8aed8c6e7189982c076c75d00eba558f236e5a018c04b7d74b87504b.Furthermore, Bieber asserted Mayorga did not have experience with the BASnet because "[i]t wasn't stated on his resume or it never came out in the interview"; he also said Mayorga had "very little" experience with ethernet and fiber-optic cables, and no experience with Cisco equipment.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_928.jsonl#/f3d/928/0084-01; Unicode character offsets [6003:6289] (end exclusive); SHA-256 73316afd8aed8c6e7189982c076c75d00eba558f236e5a018c04b7d74b87504b.Bieber also claimed Mayorga seemed confused during the interview about what job he had applied for.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_928.jsonl#/f3d/928/0084-01; Unicode character offsets [5903:6002] (end exclusive); SHA-256 73316afd8aed8c6e7189982c076c75d00eba558f236e5a018c04b7d74b87504b. |
| St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks — 509 U.S. 502 (1993) · Supreme Court of the United States · 1993 — satisfied · conceded (42usc2000e-2: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Employer's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason (McDonnell Douglas step 2) | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: conceded; claim: (a)(1); party: defendant St. Mary's Honor Center and its superintendent Long (petitioners); subject: party=defendant St. Mary's Honor Center and its superintendent Long (petitioners) Step 2 is met by production alone, even though the trier of fact later disbelieved the reasons; once met, the prima-facie presumption drops out for good. | burden-of-production/accumulated-rules-violations | 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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_509.jsonl#/us/509/0502-01; Unicode character offsets [5786:6065] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f6ba1643673c63e64401ed4ea3db1f6647ecf24cb97fdf31426b87eb7aa43ab3.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_509.jsonl#/us/509/0502-01; Unicode character offsets [8673:8880] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f6ba1643673c63e64401ed4ea3db1f6647ecf24cb97fdf31426b87eb7aa43ab3.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.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_509.jsonl#/us/509/0502-01; Unicode character offsets [8448:8672] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f6ba1643673c63e64401ed4ea3db1f6647ecf24cb97fdf31426b87eb7aa43ab3. |
Court interpretations
interpretation
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.
St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks — 509 U.S. 502 (1993) · Supreme Court of the United States · 1993 (42usc2000e-2: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed)
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.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/us_509.jsonl#/us/509/0502-01; Unicode character offsets [8673:8880] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f6ba1643673c63e64401ed4ea3db1f6647ecf24cb97fdf31426b87eb7aa43ab3.(formerly `variant legitimate-nondiscriminatory-reason`) Articulation of a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason through admissible evidence McDonnell Douglas step 2: once a prima facie case is established, the burden of production shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse action.
interpretation
the burden of production shifts to the defendant employer who must then come forth with admissible evidence that articulates a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment action
Breech v. Alabama Power Co. — 962 F. Supp. 1447 (1997) · United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama · 1997 (42usc2000e-2: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed)
the burden of production shifts to the defendant employer who must then come forth with admissible evidence that articulates a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment actionSource:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_962.jsonl#/f-supp/962/1447-01; Unicode character offsets [27358:27555] (end exclusive); SHA-256 c9d3cf4a8e3b5373cb13844fbe0d43429324dce0876d20c5fdba3f4d459c1acf.(formerly `variant legitimate-nondiscriminatory-reason`) Articulation of a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason through admissible evidence McDonnell Douglas step 2: once a prima facie case is established, the burden of production shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse action.
not-required
Persuasion or credibility assessment at step 2; the employer's burden is one of production only (St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993))
No source quotation recorded.