|
McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting or the McDonnell-Douglas burden-shifting framework refers to the procedure for adjudicating a motion for summary judgement under a Title VII disparate treatment claim, in particular a "private, non-class action challenging employment discrimination",〔''McDonnell Douglas v. Green'' (1973), 411 U.S. 792 at 800.〕 that lacks direct evidence of discrimination. It was introduced by the United States Supreme Court in ''McDonnell Douglas v. Green'' and ''Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine'' and has been elaborated on in subsequent cases. The McDonnell-Douglas framework is typically used when a case lacks direct evidence of discrimination. In other cases, courts may decide not to use the McDonnell-Douglas framework, and instead evaluate disparate treatment claims under the ''Price Waterhouse'' "mixed motive" framework. ==Framework== The framework as currently applied by courts is as follows: #A plaintiff must first establish a ''prima facie'' case by a preponderance of the evidence, i.e. allege facts that are adequate to support a legal claim. (see the below section for more) #Then the burden of production shifts to the employer, to rebut this ''prima facie'' case by "articulat() some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the employee’s rejection."〔''Id.'', at 802.〕 #Then the employee may prevail only if he can show that the employer’s response is merely a pretext for behavior actually motivated by discrimination.〔''St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks'', 509 U.S. 502 (1993).〕 Even though the employer bears the burden of production in the second step, the plaintiff bears the burden of persuasion at all times.〔''Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine'', 450 U.S. 248, 255-256 (1981).〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|