Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine
- Decided
- March 4, 1981
- Docket
- 79-1764
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 15,585 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- recognizing that the McDonnell Douglas model of a prima facie case is flexible and will vary depending on the facts of the case — Jones v. Billington (1997)
- holding that the question of retaliation should be reduced to whether a reasonable jury could find the defendants’ “proffered explanation ... unworthy of credence” — Zelaya v. UNICCO Service Co. (2010)
- recognizing that the McDonnell Douglas model of a prima facie case is flexible and will vary depending on the facts of the case — Bailey v. Henderson (2000)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Justice Powell delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case requires us to address again the nature of the evidentiary burden placed upon the defendant in an em [*250] ployment discrimination suit brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e et seq.
The narrow question presented is whether, after the plaintiff has proved a prima facie case of discriminatory treatment, the burden shifts to the defendant to persuade the court by a preponderance of the evidence that legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the challenged employment action existed.
Statutes cited
Cite this
Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (1981)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.