AND · 42usc2000e-2:employer-reason
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.All variants
| Variant | Description | Merits instance blocks | Distinct cases | Example cases (up to 3 per group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| attendance/job-abandonment-no-call-absence | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 1 | /f3d/527/0358-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2008 — satisfied | |
| attendance/unexcused-absences-under-progressive-discipline | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f-supp/962/1447-01 — United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama · 1997 — applied/alternative | |
| burden-of-production/accumulated-rules-violations | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 1 | /us/509/0502-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 1993 — satisfied | |
| burden-of-production/subjective-lack-of-institutional-fit | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f-supp/604/1450-01 — United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina · 1985 — applied/alternative | |
| legitimate-nondiscriminatory-reason | Articulation of a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason through admissible evidence | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 0 | No annotation uses in this snapshot |
| misconduct/threat-to-fight-coworker | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f-supp-2d/832/0539-01 — United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania · 2011 — applied/alternative | |
| performance/loss-of-trainee-confidence-ethics-concern-and-supervisory-style | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 1 | /f3d/858/1307-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2017 — satisfied | |
| performance/unchanged-supervisory-style-and-negative-trainee-feedback | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 1 | /f3d/858/1307-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2017 — satisfied | |
| Unspecified variant | No variant assigned in the database. | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f-supp-2d/477/0041-01 — United States District Court for the District of Columbia · 2007 — applied/merits |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Variant | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| /f-supp-2d/477/0041-01 — United States District Court for the District of Columbia · 2007 | 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 variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /f-supp-2d/832/0539-01 — United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania · 2011 | Employer's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason (McDonnell Douglas step 2) | satisfied Excluded from merits counts applied / alternative basis: conceded; claim: (a)(1) | misconduct/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. |
| /f-supp/604/1450-01 — United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina · 1985 | 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. |
| /f-supp/962/1447-01 — United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama · 1997 | 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. | attendance/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. |
| /f3d/527/0358-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2008 | Employer's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason (McDonnell Douglas step 2) | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: triable; claim: (a); 2000e(k) | attendance/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. |
| /f3d/858/1307-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2017 | 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. |
| /f3d/858/1307-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2017 | 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. |
| /us/509/0502-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 1993 | 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.
/us/509/0502-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
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.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
/f-supp/962/1447-01 — United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama · 1997
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.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.