BlogLine

Second Circuit illuminates pretext prong of McDonnell-Douglas burden-shifting framework

4/11/24

By: Lauren K. Adjieff and Sunshine R. Fellows

On Appeal from a judgment of the U.S. District Court for Connecticut, the Second Circuit clarifies the three-part McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting analysis. The court explains that for a Title VII disparate treatment case to survive the third stage of the McDonnell-Douglas burden-shifting test and summary judgment, a plaintiff may, but need not show that the employer’s stated justification for its adverse action was nothing but a pretext for discrimination. A plaintiff may also satisfy this burden by presenting evidence that, even if the employer had mixed motives, the employer’s adverse action was motivated at least in part by the plaintiff’s membership in a protected class.  

In Bart v. Golub Corporation (2d Cir., Mar. 26, 2024, No. 23-238) 2024 WL 1281069, a female team lead at a grocery store brought a gender-based discrimination lawsuit against the grocery store under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C section 2000(2) et seq and the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. section 46a-60. The female lead argued she was terminated from the grocery store, at least in part, due to her immediate supervisor’s gender bias. The female lead relied upon her male immediate supervisor’s testimony that “he didn’t think women should be managers,” that women were “too sensitive to be managers,” and that the job is “too stressful” for women in support of her contention that she was discriminated against based on her gender.  

The District Court applied the three-part McDonnel-Douglas burden-shifting framework to the case, reasoning the female lead established her prima facie case, shifting the burden to the employer to present a nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment action. The grocery store offered uncontroverted evidence she was terminated because of her failure to comply with record keeping policies and falsification of food logs. The District Court granted summary judgment, reasoning that the female lead’s acknowledgement of the reason for her termination was dispositive of the third stage pretext prong of the burden-shifting framework.  

On Appeal, the court emphasized that the third stage of the burden-shifting framework considers even if the employer’s stated justification for the adverse employment action is true, a plaintiff may also satisfy this burden by offering evidence that, even if the employer had mixed motives, the employer’s adverse action was motivated at least in part by the plaintiff’s membership in a protected class. The Court of Appeals disagreed, vacated the judgment, and remanded for proceedings.  

This case serves as a reminder to manage expectations regarding the likelihood of success at summary judgment concerning mixed-motive cases. However, while the door may be left open regarding liability; where the employer establishes it would take the same action regardless of discrimination, damages including back pay, front pay, and reinstatement are limited.

For more information, contact Lauren K. Adjieff at lauren.adjieff@fmglaw.com, Sunshine R. Fellows at sunshine.fellows@fmglaw.com, or your local FMG attorney.