Case of McDonnell Douglas V. Green
Essay Preview: Case of McDonnell Douglas V. Green
Report this essay
The case of McDonnell Douglas v. Green set the framework for circumstantial evidence in the disparate claim. In the McDonnell Douglas v. Green, the plaintiff Green was an African American and had worked for the aerospace company as a mechanic and laboratory technician until he was laid off due to a business downturn. One year later, when the company advertised openings for mechanics, Green applied for the job. However, McDonnell Douglas refused to rehire Green with the claim that he involved in an illegal “stall-in” outside the plant. To protest practices perceived as racist discrimination, Green and other employees stalled their cars and blocked traffic at the time of the morning shift change. Green sued and alleged that the true reason for their refusal was his race and his civil rights protest activities. The approach the Supreme Court provided for solving this difficult case is outlined in the Elements of a Claim feature.
Under the framework the plaintiff and defendant are responsible for providing the evidence of the followings:
As the plaintiff, she was responsible for setting a case that seems to be true to the allegation that the employment decision was made based on an intentional discrimination in consideration of protected class by showing the followings. In order to do this, she must show (1) she was a member of a protected class; (2) she was qualified and applied for the promotion; (3) she was denied in spite of her qualifications; and (4) other equally or less qualified employees who were not members of the protected class were promoted. If Wilson successfully set the prima facie case, then the defendant – B/E had to produce evidence of a lawful motive for the employment decision. If the lawful motive was successfully produce, then Wilson has a chance to provide evidence to deny B/Es claim by providing (1) evidence that gives doubt on the employers credibility and motive; and or (2) evidence supporting the employers discriminatory motive. As the plaintiff Wilson bears the ultimate burden of proving that the employer intentionally discriminated.