Since 1973, federal courts reviewing claims of employment discrimination have used a framework first established by the U.S. Supreme Court’s McDonnell Douglas decision. Under this framework, plaintiffs must show a prima facie case of discrimination. The employer then has to offer legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the action taken. If successful, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to show that those reasons were pretext for discrimination.

On Monday, the Supreme Court rejected a plaintiff’s challenge to use of the McDonnell Douglas framework when ruling on summary judgment motions. In Hittle v. City of Stockton, the plaintiff was a fire chief who alleged that he was terminated based on his Christian beliefs. In response, his employer offered evidence that the plaintiff was fired for misconduct and miscue of city funds. Using the McDonnell Douglas analysis, the district court granted summary judgment for the employer, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this decision.

In his appeal, the plaintiff asked the Supreme Court to reconsider use of McDonnell Douglas at the summary judgment stage. He argued that plaintiffs in Title VII lawsuits only need to raise a factual issue about the reasons for the adverse employment action for the claim to proceed to a jury trial. Although the Supreme Court rejected the petition for review, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito filed a dissent questioning the validity of McDonnell Douglas and urging the court to reconsider the legal framework for deciding employment discrimination cases.

For employers, overturning McDonnell Douglas would significantly increase the cost and risk from discrimination claims by raising the legal test for obtaining summary judgment. Although this case involved religious discrimination, the same reasoning would apply to allegations of race, sex, age, disability or other discrimination against legally protected classifications. The ability of plaintiffs to reach a jury based only on their claims of discrimination without taking into account the employer’s reasoning behind the employment decision would increase the risk and settlement value of such cases. In addition, weakening the ability of federal courts to grant summary judgment could lead employers to require mandatory arbitration agreements to avoid unpredictable jury verdicts.

For more information, please contact us or your regular Parker Poe contact. You can also click here to subscribe to our latest alerts and insights.