United States Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens
- Decided
- April 4, 1983
- Docket
- 81-1044
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 2,660 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that because “[t]here will seldom be ‘eyewitness’ testimony to the employer’s mental process,” evidence of the employer’s discriminatory attitude in general is relevant and admissible to prove discrimination — Rios v. Rossotti (2001)
- recognizing that the "sensitive and difficult" issue of intentional discrimination will frequently be proven by circumstantial evidence of pretext, as "[t]here will seldom be ‘eyewitness’ testimony as to the employer's mental processes” — C. Thomas RYTHER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. KARE 11, an NBC Affiliate; Gannett Co., Inc., Defendants-Appellants (1997)
- holding that the prima facie inquiry “is irrelevant when an employer has asserted a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for an adverse employment action” — Hawkins v. Gonzales (2009)
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 Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court.
Respondent Louis Aikens filed suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 253, as amended, 42 U. S. C. §2000e et seq., claiming that the United States Postal Service discriminated against him on account of his race. Aikens, who is black, claimed that the Postal Service had discriminatorily refused to promote him to higher positions in the Washington, D. C., Post Office where he had [*713] been employed since 1937. After a bench trial, the District Court entered judgment in favor of the Postal Service, but the Court of Appeals reversed. 206 U. S. App. D. C. 109, 642 F. 2d 514 (1980). We vacated the Court of Appeals’ judgment and remanded for reconsideration in light of Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U. S. 248 (1981). 453 U. S. 902 (1981).
On remand, the Court of Appeals reaffirmed its earlier holding that the District Court had erred in requiring Aikens to offer direct proof of discriminatory intent. It also held that the District Court erred in requiring Aikens to show, as part of his prima facie case, that he was “as qualified or more qualified” than the people who were promoted. 214 U. S. App. D. C. 239, 240, 241, 665 F. 2d 1057, 1058, 1059 (1981) (per curiam). We granted certiorari.[1] 455 U. S. 1015 (1982).
Statutes cited
Cite this
United States Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711 (1983)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.