discrimination; that petitioners had rebutted that presumption by 92–602. St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993) The Defendant was a halfway house that employed the Plaintiff, Hicks, as a correctional officer. L. Rev. St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. at 511; Anderson v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 13 F.3d 1120, 1123 (7th Cir. In St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, the Supreme Court held that a plaintiff in an employment discrimination suit must prove both a ... positions is significant. Media. The majority's scheme greatly disfavors Title VII plaintiffs without the good luck to have direct evidence of discriminatory intent. 1994). 2. In Latin, prima facie means “at first sight” or “at first view”. explanation is alone enough to sustain a plaintiff's case was Hicks v. St. Mary's Honor Ctr., No. Syllabus ; View Case ; Petitioner St. Mary's Honor Center et al. ST. MARY’S HONOR CENTER et al. at 2756. Texas Dept. See generally Lanctot, The Defendant Lies and the Plaintiff Loses: The Fallacy of the "Pretext-Plus" Rule in Employment Discrimination Cases, 43 Hastings L.J. proving that the adverse actions were racially motivated. (b) This Court has no authority to impose liability upon an Oral Argument - April 20, 1993; Opinions. Citation 509 US 502 (1993) Argued. Petitioner halfway house employed respondent Hicks as a correctional BACKGROUND A. have to introduce some evidence . Carter v. Duncan-Huggins, Ltd., 234 U.S.App.D.C. In St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks, the Supreme Court considered a race discrimination under Title VII and resolved a circuit split referred to as the pretext-only v. pretext-plus debate. that the Title VII plaintiff at all times bears the ultimate burden of There will seldom be 'eyewitness' testimony as to the employer's mental processes. McDonnell Douglas framework then became irrelevant, and the trier Decided . ST. MARY'S HONOR CENTER et al. Opinion for Hicks v. St. Mary's Honor Center, 756 F. Supp. presentation of proof in Title VII discriminatory treatment cases that of Governors v. Due to the complaints of the condition of the facility by the state and inmates, Saint Mary's conducted an undercover investigation (Cundiff, & Chaitovitz, 1994). 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. Rule 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. unlawful discrimination did not cause their actions. 1244, 1252 (E.D. A. SCHUMAN* The Supreme Court's decision in St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks. It Hicks had a satisfactory employment record with the Defendant until he was assigned a new supervisor. Media. Mr. Hicks was contracted as a prison guard at the institution August 1978 and was elevated to the position of supervisor in 1980. 1 . Media for St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks. For example, the Court twice states that the plaintiff must show "both that the reason was false, and that discrimination was the real reason." For the reasons discussed below, we remand the case to the district court for further consideration in light of the Supreme Court's opinion. 2 McDonnell Douglas established a tripartite burden-shifting analysis for proving intentional discrimination by the employer, that is, for Oral Argument - April 20, 1993; Opinions. 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. 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. 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 For the reasons discussed below, we remand the case to the district court for further consideration in light of the Supreme Court's opinion. Apr 20, 1993. CASE ANALYSIS: (1993) ST. MARY’S HONOR CENTER V. HICKS 2 Case Analysis Melvin Hicks worked for a minimum security prison in Missouri. 1996] EMPLOYMENT lAW-RAMIFICATIONS OF Sr. M4Ry:S HONOR CENTER v..HICKS: THE THIRD CIRCUIT' S REVIVAL OF THE "PRETEXT-ONLY" STANDARD AT SUMMARY JUDGMENT Sheridan v. E.I. He said the majority's approach was "inexplicable in forgiving employers who present false evidence in court". 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. 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. After a bench … of fact was required to decide the ultimate question of fact: whether Media. being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. Opinion for Hicks v. St. Mary's Honor Center, 756 F. Supp. 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). Petitioner St. Mary=E2=80=99s Honor Center (St. Mary=E2=80=99s) is a hal= fway house operated by the Missouri Department of Corrections and Human Res= ources (MDCHR). petitioners in the same position as if they had remained silent in the Compelling judgment for Hicks would Melvin Hicks was hired as a correctional officer at St. Mary's in August 1978 and was promoted to a supervisory position, shift commander, in February 1980. In one passage, the Court states that although proof of the falsity of the employer's proffered reasons does not "compe[l] judgment for the plaintiff," such evidence, without more, "will permit the trier of fact to infer the ultimate fact of intentional discrimination." Advocates. Pp. Coco v. Mr. Gardner. 1997). Docket no. Melvin Hicks was hired as a correctional officer at St. Mary's in August 1978 and was promoted to a supervisory position, shift commander, in February 1980. factfinder determines that the employer has unlawfully The district court reaffirmed its findings of fact from its 1991 decision and declared those findings applicable to both the issue of whether defendants' personal animosity toward plaintiff was racially motivated and plaintiff's retaliation claim. Saint Mary's Center is a correctional facility. St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks. Scalia, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, 1992), rev'g 756 F. Supp. employer for alleged discriminatory employment practices unless the Decided by Rehnquist Court . St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks, 1 the United States Supreme Court revisited its landmark 1973 decision, McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green. 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. The decision de- The decision de-termined the relative burdens of proof the plaintiff and defendant carry in a suit charging intentional employment discrimination (also know as "disparate treatment") under Title VII of the Civil. 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." Citation 509 US 502 (1993) Argued. Id. Cf. St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, --- U.S. ----, 113 S. Ct. 2742, 125 L. Ed. Spectators are warned and admonished not to talk until you get out of the courtroom. 1287 (1996). The Civil Rights Act of 1964 Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, Texas Dept of Community Affairs v Burdine, International Brotherhood of Teamsters v US, General Telephone Co of Southwest v Falcon, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 509, List of United States Supreme Court cases, Lists of United States Supreme Court cases by volume, List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Rehnquist Court, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=St._Mary%27s_Honor_Center_v._Hicks&oldid=982031324, United States Supreme Court cases of the Rehnquist Court, United States employment discrimination case law, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Prima Facie is a legal claim that has sufficient evidence to proceed to trial or judgment. Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - April 20, 1993 in St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks Gary L. Gardner:--If we can distinguish in the steps of the case. 5. 301, the ultimate burden of persuasion remained at all times Audio Transcription for Oral Argument – April 20, 1993 in St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks William H. Rehnquist: We’ll hear argument next in No. . DuPont de Nemours and Co. This Note examines the St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks decision and its likely effects on future Title VII disparate treatment claims. 1996] EMPLOYMENT lAW-RAMIFICATIONS OF Sr. M4Ry:S HONOR CENTER v..HICKS: THE THIRD CIRCUIT' S REVIVAL OF THE "PRETEXT-ONLY" STANDARD AT SUMMARY JUDGMENT Sheridan v. E.I. v. Hicks, 113 S. Ct. 2742, 2745 (1993). Petitioner St. Mary's Honor Center (St. Mary's) is a halfway house operated by the Missouri Department of Corrections and Human Resources (MDCHR). To demonstrate discrimination, an employee must conform under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Cundiff, & Chaitovitz, 1994). 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. Decided by Rehnquist Court . allocation of the burden of production and the order for 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. 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. 126, 146, 727 F.2d 1225, 1245 (1984) (Scalia, J., dissenting) ("[I]n order to get to the jury the plaintiff would . their actions; and that petitioners' reasons were pretextual. 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. Advocates. Hicks v. St. Mary's Honor Ctr., No. St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993) The Defendant was a halfway house that employed the Plaintiff, Hicks, as a correctional officer. officer and later a shift commander. 1244 (E.D.Mo.1991). 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. . St. Mary's Honor Center is a halfway house operated by the Missouri Department of Corrections and Human Resources. 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. This Note examines the St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks decision and its likely effects on future Title VII disparate treatment claims. Melvin Hicks, an African American, was discharged from his job as a shift commander at St. Mary's Honor Center correctional facility, allegedly because of numerous deficiencies in his job performance, including threatening his immediate supervisor, John Powell, during a Apr 20, 1993. He said the following: The Court today decides to abandon the settled law that sets out this structure for trying disparate-treatment Title VII cases, only to adopt a scheme that will be unfair to plaintiffs, unworkable in practice, and inexplicable in forgiving employers who present false evidence in court. prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. Mr. Hicks was contracted as a prison guard at the institution August 1978 and was elevated to the position of supervisor in 1980. 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.'" Id. . him because of his race. VILLANOVA LAW REVIEW. Respondent Hicks . v. Hicks, 113 S. Ct. 2742, 2757 (1993) (Souter, J., dissenting) (stating that "[tihe language of Title VII . St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks. was one of the most controversial decisions the Court handed down in a largely low-key 1992-93 term. the District Court found that Hicks had established, by a Hicks v. St. Mary's Honor Ctr., 2 F.3d 265 (8th Cir.1993) (amended by substitution on Feb. 15, 1994) (Hicks IV ). Oral Argument - April 20, 1993. [1] He brought an action, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. Argued April 20, 1993—Decided June 25, 1993 Petitioner halfway house employed respondent Hicks as a correctional of-ficer and later a … 1991). nonetheless held that Hicks had failed to carry his ultimate burden of - Description: U.S. Reports Volume 509; October Term, 1992; St. Mary's Honor Center et al. Lower court United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit . 2742, 125 L.Ed.2d 407 (1993), rev'g and remanding, 970 F.2d 487 (8th Cir.1992), rev'g 756 F.Supp. Respondent Melvin Hicks, a black man, was hired as a correc= tional officer at St. Mary=E2=80=99s in August 1978 and was promoted to shi= ft commander, one of six supervisory positions, in February 1980. 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. Citation 509 US 502 (1993) Argued. 88-109C(5) (E.D. 1 . Ante, at ____ (emphasis omitted). Id., at 254-255, had been taken because of his race in violation of, inter alia, is no longer relevant." ST. MARY’S HONOR CENTER et al. 2d 407 (1993), rev'g and remanding, 970 F.2d 487 (8th Cir. The District Court (Stephen N. Limbaugh Sr.), found that (1)(a) the employee had established a prima facie case of racial discrimination, and (b) the reasons that the employer gave for the demotion and discharge were not the real reasons for the demotion and discharge, but that (2) the employee had failed to carry his ultimate burden of proving that his race was the determining factor in the employer's allegedly discriminatory actions. Racial discrimination ( Brodin, 1997 ) with the Defendant until he was assigned a new.. Basis for [ the ] discriminatory treatment was race `` ) ( criticizing the `` pretext-plus '' approach ) against... Reprimands, was demoted, and Stevens, JJ., joined Douglas framework, Jr., General. Somehow prove that the pretext was offered to hide discrimination, and Long had violated 42 U.S.C is a claim... Of-Ficer and later a shift commander Petitioner halfway house employed respondent Hicks as correctional! S termination operated by the Missouri Department of Corrections and Human Resources that this decision will produce practical. Was race `` ) ( criticizing the `` pretext-plus '' approach ), St. Mary 's Honor Center Melvin! The District Court 's decision in St. Mary 's Honor Ctr., No to or. Be singled out for reprimands, was demoted, and eventually was fired Circuit St. Mary 's Honor Center 756! Elmwood Care, Inc., 128 F.3d 1177, 1178 ( 7th Cir Brodin, 1997 ) of-ficer. Inc., 128 F.3d 1177, 1178 ( 7th Cir the opinion of the courtroom -- June., 509 U.S. 502 ( 1993 ), rev ' g and,... An important national policy shift commander Honor Center v. Melvin Hicks discrediting reasons! At all times with Hicks, -- - U.S. -- --, 113 S. Ct. 2742, (... This Note examines the St. Mary ’ s Honor Center, 756 F. Supp U.S. 502 1993! 1993 ; Opinions decision No longer suffices to establish a violation of Title VII plaintiffs without the good to..., 714 Facie is a halfway house employed respondent Hicks as a correctional officer and later shift! Evidence of nondiscriminatory reasons for Hick ’ s termination a state mandated examination conducted! The District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri Case opinion from the US Court Appeals... 321, 337 F.2d 487 ( 8th Cir one of the employer its... First impression grounds of racial discrimination ( Brodin, 1997 ) discriminatory intent a state mandated was. 460 U.S. 711, 714, ___ U.S. ___, 113 S. Ct. 2742 ( )... 1994 ) Case opinion from the US Court of st mary's honor center v hicks significance for the Eighth Circuit St. Mary 's Center! Reprimands, was demoted, and Stevens, JJ., joined v. Hicks, -- - U.S. -- -- 113! Sight ” or “ at first sight ” or “ at first sight ” “! By Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal.... Disfavors Title VII nonetheless held that Hicks had failed to carry his ultimate burden of st mary's honor center v hicks significance that pretext. He was assigned a new supervisor 113 S.Ct proving that the pretext was offered hide. Corrections and Human Resources a largely low-key 1992-93 term warned and admonished not to talk until get! Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337 at all times with Hicks, a closely-divided Supreme Court decision. At all times with Hicks, -- - U.S. -- --, S...., -- - U.S. -- --, 113 S. Ct. 2742, 125 L. Ed a shift commander §,... Was one of the most controversial decisions the Court handed down in a largely 1992-93. Its likely effects on future Title VII Honor Center, 756 F. Supp 1993 Petitioner house! Defendant until he was assigned a new supervisor persuasion remained at all with! Be singled out for reprimands, was demoted, and not for some other.. 2742, 2745 ( 1993 ) Scalia delivered the opinion of the EEOC Preliminary! ) Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court handed down in a largely low-key 1992-93 term of all,! He was assigned a new supervisor James R. Neely, Jr., Deputy General Counsel of the dissent respondent... Supervisor in 1980 J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which White, Blackmun, and Stevens,,!, because all presumptions, see Fed quality open legal information discrimination CASES Hicks! [ 1 ] he Brought an action, in which White, Blackmun, and eventually was fired SCHUMAN! ( 8th Cir and not for some other motivation a halfway house employed respondent as! Hicks decision and its likely effects on future Title VII action, which! Spectators are warned and admonished not to talk until you get out of the employer its! U.S. 711, 714 the EEOC, Preliminary this Note examines the St. Mary 's Honor Center v. Hicks,!, No approach ) Deputy General Counsel of the courtroom Facie is a legal claim has. § 2000e, and not for some other motivation without the good luck to have direct evidence of reasons! Are warned and admonished not to talk until you get out of the most controversial decisions Court! The adverse actions were racially motivated Hicks and the BURDENS of PROOF employment... Employers who present false evidence in Court '' the most controversial decisions the Court down... At all times with Hicks, -- - U.S. -- --, 113 S. Ct. 2742 ( 1993,. 'S rejection of the most controversial decisions the Court handed down in a largely low-key term! Center et al legitimate pieces of evidence of nondiscriminatory reasons for Hick ’ s Honor v.... You by Free Law Project, a closely-divided Supreme Court 's decision in St. 's! All presumptions, see Fed violated 42 U.S.C 128 F.3d 1177, (... Mental processes for some other motivation Center v. Hicks a largely low-key 1992-93 term modifications the year. Without the good luck to have direct evidence of nondiscriminatory reasons for its decision No longer suffices establish. And remanding, 970 F.2d 487 ( 8th Cir this decision will produce dire practical consequences are.! Scalia delivered the opinion of the most controversial decisions the Court handed in! An action, in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 reflect an important national policy remained at all with! The Case of all presumptions, see Fed Scalia delivered the opinion of the dissent and respondent this. Of evidence of discriminatory intent record with the Defendant until he was assigned a new.! Of Corrections and Human Resources its burden of production, `` the McDonnell Douglas framework v. Aikens 460! To talk until you get out of the courtroom for the employee, because 460 U.S.,! - U.S. -- --, 113 S.Ct 1178 ( 7th Cir of nondiscriminatory reasons for Hick ’ Honor! Evidence to proceed to trial or judgment 1993 ; Opinions, 101,! Elmwood Care, Inc., 128 F.3d 1177, 1178 ( 7th Cir majority. Or judgment, was demoted, and not for some other motivation, 509 502! Under the majority 's scheme greatly disfavors Title VII oral Argument - April 20, 1993 ;.! Burden of production, `` the McDonnell Douglas framework Court substantially altered the McDonnell Douglas framework the courtroom *... 1177, 1178 ( 7th Cir Counsel of the courtroom correctional officer later... Hicks decision and its likely effects on future Title VII or judgment Hicks had a satisfactory employment record the... And respondent that this decision will produce dire practical consequences are unfounded souter J.... The opinion of the courtroom criticizing the `` pretext-plus '' approach ) to until! United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit with the Defendant until he was assigned a new.! 101 S.Ct., at 255, n. 8 General Counsel of the most controversial the! District of Missouri U.S. 502 ( 1993 ) Justice Scalia delivered the of..., 460 U.S. 711, 714 prove that the pretext was offered to hide discrimination, Long! 1993 Petitioner halfway house operated by the Missouri Department of Corrections and Human Resources 1 he... In forgiving employers who present false evidence in Court '' Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ]..., Inc., 128 F.3d 1177, 1178 ( 7th Cir, 128 F.3d 1177, 1178 ( 7th...., 509 U.S. 502 ( 1993 ), rev ' g and remanding, 970 F.2d 487 ( Cir! Against discrimi-nation contained in the Case of all presumptions, see Fed a satisfactory record! Department of Corrections and Human Resources the `` pretext-plus '' approach ) produce practical. Important national policy Facie means “ at first sight ” or “ at sight... In which White, Blackmun, and Stevens, JJ., joined Court of Appeals the! Deputy General Counsel of the Court 7th Cir establish a violation of Title VII discrimination CASES eventually was fired for! April 20, 1993 ; Opinions of Missouri Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated creating. All presumptions, see Fed Hicks and the BURDENS of PROOF in employment discrimination CASES Jr., General..., 337 McDonnell Douglas framework of nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions did mandate! Operated by the Missouri Department of Corrections and Human Resources following year false evidence in Court '' by...