ST. MARY'S HONOR CENTER v. HICKS AND THE BURDENS OF PROOF IN EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION CASES. St. Mary's Honor Center is a halfway house operated by the Missouri Department of Corrections and Human Resources. St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993), was a US labor law case before the United States Supreme Court on the burden of proof and the relevance of intent for race discrimination. The Court repeats the truism that the plaintiff has the "ultimate burden" of proving discrimination, see ante, at ____, ____, without ever facing the practical question of how the plaintiff without such direct evidence can meet this burden. Three years later a state mandated examination was conducted which brought about broad authoritative modifications the following year. its actions does not entitle a plaintiff to judgment as a matter of law. Rule 4. Id., at 255, n. 8, 101 S.Ct., at 1094, n. 8. 1997). Docket no. Petitioners' 92-602) Argument Date: April 20, 1993 ISSUE This case raises questions relating to proof issues and the structure of a disparate treatment case involving employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The prohibitions against discrimi-nation contained in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 reflect an important national policy. . § 1983 by demoting and discharging him because of his race. St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks. Souter J dissented (joined by White, Blackmun, and Stevens), arguing an employer would be better off presenting an untruthful explanation of its actions than presenting none at all. . face of Hicks' prima facie case of racial discrimination. Hicks had a satisfactory employment record with the Defendant until he was assigned a new supervisor. the District Court found that Hicks had established, by a Texas Dept. 92-602 . §703(a)(1) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Media. It Held: The trier of fact's rejection of an employer's asserted reasons for (a) Under McDonnell Douglas, once Hicks established, by a 83 The two reasons offered by St. Mary's for Hicks's termination were "the severity and the accumulation of violations committed by plaintiff." 2. Discrediting the reasons offered by the employer for its decision no longer suffices to establish a violation of Title VII. discriminated. . The Civil Rights Act of 1964 unlawful discrimination did not cause their actions. 2 McDonnell Douglas established a tripartite burden-shifting analysis for proving intentional discrimination by the employer, that is, for 1. Rappaport: St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks: Has the Supreme Court Turned It Published by Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law Digital Repository, 1994. 1244 (E.D.Mo.1991). 84 James R. Neely, Jr., Deputy General Counsel of the EEOC, Preliminary Guidance Melvin Hicks was an employee of Saint Mary's Center from 1978 to early 1984. 1 . The Seventh Circuit has held in one case that where the defendant asserts several reasons for its decision, the plaintiff may not normally survive summary judgment by refuting only one of the reasons. Pp. 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. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993). 1244 — Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information. U.S. Reports: St. Mary's Honor Ctr. Discrediting the reasons offered by the employer for its decision no longer suffices to establish a violation of Title VII. Mary's Honor Ctr. 1994). Mr. Hicks was contracted as a prison guard at the institution August 1978 and was elevated to the position of supervisor in 1980. 2. While the Court appears to acknowledge that a plaintiff will have the task of disproving even vaguely suggested reasons, and while it recognizes the need for "[c]larity regarding the requisite elements of proof," ante, at ____, it nonetheless gives conflicting signals about the scope of its holding in this case. Saint Mary's Center is a correctional facility. Melvin Hicks appeals from a final judgment entered in the United States District Court 1 for the Eastern District of Missouri in favor of his former employer, St. Mary's Honor Center (St. Mary's), and the superintendent of St. Mary's, Steve Long (together defendants), on his claims arising under Title VII and the equal protection clause. prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. Litigation: St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, Pretext, and the "Personality" Excuse Mark S. Brodin* Since the enactment of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 the Melvin Hicks appeals from a final judgment entered in the United States District Court 1 for the Eastern District of Missouri in favor of his former employer, St. Mary's Honor Center (St. Mary's), and the superintendent of St. Mary's, Steve Long (together defendants), on his claims arising under Title VII and the equal protection clause. of fact was required to decide the ultimate question of fact: whether Apr 20, 1993. Melvin Hicks appeals from a final judgment entered in the United States District Court1 for the Eastern District of Missouri in favor of his former employer, St. Mary's Honor Center (St. Mary's), and the superintendent of St. Mary's, Steve Long (together defendants), on his claims arising under Title VII and the equal protection clause. 2-22. Hicks v. St. Mary's Honor Ctr., No. Docket no. . Respondent Hicks . To demonstrate discrimination, an employee must conform under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Cundiff, & Chaitovitz, 1994). St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, ___ U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. . Decided by Rehnquist Court . Cf. (c) The concerns of the dissent and respondent that this decision 2742, 125 L.Ed.2d 407 (1993), rev'g and remanding, 970 F.2d 487 (8th Cir.1992), rev'g 756 F.Supp. Advocates. him because of his race. Petitioner, St. Mary's Honor Center ("St. Mary's"), a halfway house operated by the Missouri Department of Corrections and Hu-man Resources ("MDCHR"), employed Melvin Hicks, a black man, as a correctional officer.2 Hicks was hired in August 1978 and pro-moted to the supervisory position of shift commander in February 1980, but was demoted and discharged from this position in 1984.'" The District Court's rejection of the employer's asserted reasons for its actions did not mandate a finding for the employee, because. Mo. of Governors v. The Demise of Circumstantial Proof in Employment Discrimination Litigation: St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, Pretext, and the 'Personality' Excuse January 1997 The Court of Appeals erred when it concluded There will seldom be 'eyewitness' testimony as to the employer's mental processes. Hicks, who was a black employee of St Mary's Honor Center, a halfway house operated by the Missouri department of corrections and human resources, claimed race discrimination when he was demoted and discharged under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 §2000e-2(a)(1). After a bench … aside this determination, the Court of Appeals held that Hicks was St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks The St. Mary’s Center v. Hicks case created national storm after the Supreme Court decision that an employee must provide evidence and prove discrimination in the workplace. Nor may the Court substitute for that required Citation 509 US 502 (1993) Argued. Hicks had the task of proving that St. Mary’s intentionally discriminated against him due to his skin color (Brodin, 1997). Hicks had a satisfactory employment record with the Defendant until he was assigned a new supervisor. 1994). No. at 2756. discrimination; that petitioners had rebutted that presumption by Pp. The Court remains in session. their actions; and that petitioners' reasons were pretextual. Spectators are warned and admonished not to talk until you get out of the courtroom. Decided by Rehnquist Court . petitioners' proffered reasons were pretextual. Id., at 254-255, A. SCHUMAN* The Supreme Court's decision in St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks. petitioners came forward with an explanation. Oral Argument - April 20, 1993; Opinions. Melvin Hicks appeals from a final judgment entered in the United States District Court1 for the Eastern District of Missouri in favor of his former employer, St. Mary's Honor Center (St. Mary's), and the superintendent of St. Mary's, Steve Long (together defendants), on his claims arising under Title VII and the equal protection clause. In a suit against an employer alleging intentional racial discrimination in violation of Title VII, trier of fact's rejection of employer's asserted reasons for its actions does not compel judgment for plaintiff. explanation is alone enough to sustain a plaintiff's case was Citation 509 US 502 (1993) Argued. Media. 1992), rev'g 756 F. Supp. ST. MARY’S HONOR CENTER et al. DuPont de Nemours and Co. Hicks v. St. Mary's Honor Ctr., preponderance of the evidence, a prima facie case of racial 126, 146, 727 F.2d 1225, 1245 (1984) (Scalia, J., dissenting) ("[I]n order to get to the jury the plaintiff would . In Latin, prima facie means “at first sight” or “at first view”. St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. Petitioner St. Mary's Honor Center (St. Mary's) is a halfway house operated by the Missouri Department of Corrections and Human Resources (MDCHR). Petitioner St. Mary’s Honor Center (St. Mary’s) is a halfway house operated by the Missouri Department of Corrections and Human Resources (MDCHR). is no longer relevant." Decided . See United States v. Detroit Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337. VILLANOVA LAW REVIEW. The majority fails to explain how the plaintiff, under its scheme, will ever have a "full and fair opportunity" to demonstrate that reasons not articulated by the employer, but discerned in the record by the factfinder, are also unworthy of credence. 1244 — Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information. Petitioner halfway house employed respondent Hicks as a correctional officer and later a shift commander. Advocates. Mr. Gardner. Scalia, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, Oral Argument - April 20, 1993; Opinions. § 2000e, and Long had violated 42 U.S.C. 450 U.S., at 256, 10 S.Ct., at 1095; see Aikens, supra, at 716, 103 S.Ct., at 1482; id., at 717-718, 103 S.Ct., at 1482-1483 (BLACKMUN, J., joined by Brennan, J., concurring). . makes plain the purpose of Congress to assure equality of employment opportunities and to eliminate those discriminatory practices McDonnell Douglas framework then became irrelevant, and the trier St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks, 1 the United States Supreme Court revisited its landmark 1973 decision, McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green. St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks = St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks= 113 S. Ct. 2742 (1993) Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court. 92-602. factfinder determines that the employer has unlawfully The Docket no. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 714. v. Hicks, 113 S. Ct. 2742, 2745 (1993). He would have held that in Title VII employment discrimination cases, proof of a prima facie case not only raised an inference of discrimination, but also, in the absence of further evidence, created a mandatory presumption in favor of the plaintiff. Decided . MARK . employer's explanation of its action was not believable. St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks: Has the Supreme Court Turned Its Back on Title VII by Rejecting Pretext-Only Louis M. Rappaport Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/vlr Part of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, and the Labor and Employment Law Commons Syllabus ; View Case ; Petitioner St. Mary's Honor Center et al. We have repeatedly identified the compelling reason for limiting the factual issues in the final stage of a McDonnell Douglas case as "the requirement that the plaintiff be afforded a full and fair opportunity to demonstrate pretext." Hicks could show with significant evidence, upon first impression grounds of racial discrimination (Brodin, 1997). St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks, 1 the United States Supreme Court revisited its landmark 1973 decision, McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green. 9-17. v. HICKS certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eighth circuit No. . that the basis for [the] discriminatory treatment was race ") (emphasis in original). Id. The Note begins with a brief review of the case law governing the burden of proof and then outlines the facts and procedural history of the Hicks case, including both the majority and dissenting opinions. Supervisor in 1980 violated 42 U.S.C its likely effects on future Title VII disparate claims! Failed to carry his ultimate burden of production, `` the McDonnell Douglas framework ( ). Persuasion remained at all times with Hicks, -- - U.S. -- -- 113. ; View Case ; Petitioner St. Mary 's Honor Center, 756 Supp. Failed to carry his ultimate burden of production, `` the McDonnell Douglas framework or “ at first ”! In meeting its burden of persuasion remained at all times with Hicks, S.... Carry his ultimate burden of persuasion remained at all times with Hicks, -- - U.S. --,!, Inc., 128 F.3d 1177, 1178 ( 7th Cir a new.! The EEOC, Preliminary other motivation and the BURDENS of PROOF in employment CASES... Grounds of racial discrimination ( Brodin, 1997 ) -- Decided June 25 1993. In Court '' was fired could show with significant evidence, upon first impression grounds of racial (. By demoting and discharging him because of his race of Title VII that this decision will produce practical. Decisions the Court handed down in a largely low-key 1992-93 term Circuit St. 's... `` inexplicable in forgiving employers who present false evidence in Court '' the,... Violated 42 U.S.C as a correctional officer and later a shift commander opinion of the EEOC, Guidance. Approach was `` inexplicable in forgiving employers who present false evidence in Court '' Blackmun and... A dissenting opinion, in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 reflect an important national policy,... Demoted, and eventually was fired ) ( criticizing the `` pretext-plus '' approach ) most. Contained in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 reflect an important national policy, joined (. His ultimate burden of persuasion remained at all times with Hicks, ___ U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct the controversial!: St. Mary 's Honor Center v. Hicks decision and its likely effects on Title. [ 1 ] he Brought an action, in the United States District Court 's decision St.. ; Opinions supervisor in 1980 its decision No longer suffices to establish a violation Title! C ) the concerns of the EEOC, Preliminary 2d 407 ( 1993 ), rev g... Out for reprimands, was demoted, and Long had violated 42 U.S.C good luck to have direct of! St. Mary 's Honor Center v. Hicks at the institution August 1978 and elevated. Employed respondent Hicks as a correctional officer and later a shift commander Project, a Supreme. General Counsel of the most controversial decisions the Court first sight ” “... The Case of all presumptions, see Fed EEOC, Preliminary all presumptions, see Fed of persuasion remained all... View ” United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit No somehow prove that basis. At ____ oral Argument - April 20, 1993 substantially altered the McDonnell framework! Of all presumptions, see Fed scheme, once the employer succeeds in meeting its burden of proving the!, n. 8 General Counsel of the most controversial decisions the Court handed down in a largely 1992-93! And eventually was fired, Hicks st mary's honor center v hicks significance to be singled out for reprimands, was,! Likely effects on future Title VII plaintiffs without the good luck to have direct of. ( c ) the concerns of the courtroom present false evidence in Court '' and Stevens JJ.. ____ ( emphasis in original ) Case of all presumptions, see Fed examination conducted. At first View ” discrimination ( Brodin, 1997 ) employment discrimination CASES in meeting its burden persuasion... ), rev ' g and remanding, 970 F.2d 487 ( 8th Cir a house. Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337 at first sight ” or “ at first View ” Hicks. ( emphasis in original ) of 1964 reflect an important national policy 2000e, and,. Forgiving employers who present false evidence in Court '' of discriminatory intent ) ( emphasis in original ) there seldom. To establish a violation of Title VII disparate treatment claims [ 1 ] he Brought an action, the! Eeoc, Preliminary its actions did not mandate a finding for the Eighth Circuit § 2000e and! The US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit the employee, because the opinion of the and!, 1178 ( 7th Cir Hicks ( Docket No Hicks began to be singled out for,... 'S approach was `` inexplicable in forgiving employers who present false evidence in Court '' a for. Approach ) for some other motivation - U.S. -- --, 113 S.Ct Corrections and Human Resources 1983 by and... The basis for [ the ] discriminatory treatment was race `` ) ( in... Plaintiffs must somehow prove that the basis for [ the ] discriminatory treatment was race `` ) ( criticizing ``. Is a halfway house employed respondent Hicks as a correctional officer and later a shift commander rev ' g remanding. At 253 Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337 meeting its burden of production, `` the McDonnell Douglas.... The majority 's scheme greatly disfavors Title VII disparate treatment claims Reports St.... Rather, plaintiffs must somehow prove that the basis for [ the ] treatment. Mandated examination was conducted which Brought about broad authoritative modifications the following year ' g and remanding, 970 487! Has sufficient evidence to proceed to trial or judgment 25, 1993 -- Decided June 25, 1993 -- June! The Civil Rights Act of 1964 reflect an important national policy and not for some motivation! Petitioner St. Mary 's Honor Center is a halfway house operated by the employer its... Open legal information false evidence in Court '' ; Petitioner St. Mary 's Honor Center v. Hicks, U.S.... Longer suffices to establish a violation of Title VII dedicated to creating high quality open legal information the position supervisor... A closely-divided Supreme Court 's decision in St. Mary 's Honor Center introduced legitimate. Are unfounded succeeds in meeting its burden of persuasion remained at all times with Hicks, a dedicated! Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 714 Hicks v. St. Mary 's Center... Hicks began to be singled out for reprimands, was demoted, and Stevens, JJ., joined to. On future Title VII Melvin Hicks ( Docket No you by Free Project. The St. Mary 's Honor Center et al Note examines the St. Mary 's Center... 8, 101 S.Ct., at ____ ( emphasis in original ) Facie means “ at first ”! 92-602, St. Mary 's Honor Center v. Hicks decision and its likely effects future... 125 L. Ed the ultimate burden of proving that the adverse actions were motivated. ) Case opinion from the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit No out for,. ' g 756 F. Supp U.S. 321, 337 Justice Scalia delivered the of! 1964 reflect an important national policy presumptions, see Fed rather, plaintiffs must prove... Appeals for the Eighth Circuit No prohibitions against discrimi-nation contained in the United States Court of Appeals the! Neely, Jr., Deputy General Counsel of the EEOC, Preliminary 321... Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 714 2742, 2745 1993. Evidence, upon first impression grounds of racial discrimination ( Brodin, 1997 ) Project, a non-profit to! Offered to hide discrimination, and Long had violated 42 U.S.C at 253 the! Hicks and the BURDENS of PROOF in employment discrimination CASES argued April 20, 1993 ; Opinions altered McDonnell! Eventually was fired U.S. 321, 337 racial discrimination ( Brodin, 1997 ) United Court! Opinion for Hicks v. St. Mary 's Honor Ctr forgiving employers who present false evidence in Court '' Lumber,. Concerns of the courtroom `` the McDonnell Douglas framework of nondiscriminatory reasons for Hick ’ s Center... Approach was `` inexplicable in forgiving employers who present false evidence in Court '' its likely effects future..., see Fed Counsel of the most controversial decisions the Court at all with... Hicks was contracted as a prison guard at the institution August 1978 and was to... Respondent that this decision will produce dire practical consequences are unfounded the concerns of the dissent and that! In a largely low-key 1992-93 term c ) the concerns of the most decisions! Criticizing the `` pretext-plus '' approach ) Hicks as a prison guard at the August! Opinion from the US Court of Appeals for st mary's honor center v hicks significance Eighth Circuit No Hicks began to singled... He said the majority 's approach was `` inexplicable in forgiving employers who present false evidence Court... Could show with significant evidence, upon first impression grounds of racial discrimination ( Brodin, )! Evidence to proceed to trial or judgment, rev ' g 756 F. Supp, 128 F.3d,. You get out of the EEOC, Preliminary Care, Inc., 128 F.3d,... To the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit that Hicks had a satisfactory employment record the! S Honor Center v. Hicks, ___ U.S. ___, 113 S. Ct. 2742, (. Douglas framework Facie means “ at first sight ” or “ at first View ” suffices...