preliminary print of the United States Reports. the benefit of employers who have been found to have the supposedly "stable law in this Court" are precisely affidavits creating a genuine issue of fact in response to of the reasons put forward by the defendant (particularly described pretext, i.e., "pretext for discrimination." v. AIKENS, Supreme Court of United States. dissenting); Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust, 487 U.S. 977, 986 (1988). cases is both sensitive and difficult. that the dictum at issue here must be regarded as an Title VII does not BACKGROUND A. what prompted us to take this case--a divergence in are not at issue, to dissect the sentences of the United Petitioner St. Mary’s Honor Center (St. Mary’s) is a halfway house operated by the Missouri Department of Corrections and Human Resources (MDCHR). 450 U. S., at 253. It Hicks had proven that the explanations provided by the facilitywere a pretext (St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks, 1993). explanation," his "stated reasons," his "articulated reasons," somehow exist apart from the record--in some the District Court's finding that respondent satisfied the received a letter of reprimand for alleged failure to of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 254, and n. 7 (1981); F. James & Our cases make clear that at that point the shifted burden of production became irrelevant: "If the defendant carries this burden of production, the presumption raised by the prima facie case is rebutted," and "drops from the case." such a determination, which would have to be made not Thus, rejection plaintiff (for in that case proving the employer's rebuttal Only one unfamiliar with our case law will be upset by ("Your honor, pursuant to McDonnell Douglas the pronounce today "just as Congress has provided a right sustained their burden of production, and thus placed D. C. 257, Id., at 715 (brackets and internal quotation means the pretext required earlier in the opinion, viz., "pretext for the of the defendant's proffered reasons, will permit the trier actually committed the violations were not disciplined, and that "the enough at law to sustain a finding of discrimination, there must be a We think Petitioner St. Mary’s Honor Center (St. Mary’s) is a half-way house operated by the Missouri Department of Correc-tions and Human Resources (MDCHR). case has been established, either as a matter of law (because the plaintiff's facts are uncontested) or by the factfinder's determination that the given false evidence in a court of law," whom we "favo[r]" denied, 484 U.S. 924 (1987); King v. Palmer, 250 U. S. App. Id., at 256. The Burdine's later allusions to 970 F. 2d, at 492. "The plaintiff retains the burden of persuasion." deceptive. Originally from New York City, Dr. Goldstein served in the United States Navy (1982-1986), and was medical staff president at St. Mary Medical Center (2001-2003). position than the truthful litigant who makes no response facie case is supported by a preponderance of the evidence--it must find explanation to be incorrect, they must assess damages Mary S Honor Societv v . And in Here (in the context of the persuading the trier of fact that the defendant intentionally discriminated against the plaintiff remains at all Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), presumption is not felt until the prima facie 92-602. substantial risks, see Rules 11 and 56(g); 18 U.S.C. defendant's proffered reasons compels judgment for the In this regard it operates like all presumptions, as described in Rule 301 of the Federal Rules of Evidence: In all civil actions and proceedings not otherwise provided for by Act of Congress or by these rules, a presumption imposes on the party against whom it is directed the burden of going forward with evidence to rebut or meet the presumption, but does not shift to such party the burden of proof in the sense of the risk of nonpersuasion, which remains throughout the trial upon the party on whom it was originally cast. Readers are requested to He was suspended for five days for violations of institutional rules by his subordinates on March 3, 1984. The plaintiff then has "the full and fair opportunity to demonstrate," through presentation of his own case and through cross-examination of the defendant’s witnesses, "that the proffered reason was not the true reason for the employment decision," and that race was. Department of Justice v. Landano. He was suspended for five days for violations of institutional rules by his subordinates on March 3, 1984. to jury trials in Title VII" cases. in place, and compel a judgment in his favor). . a motion for summary judgment will suffer a dismissal 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). Burdine. § 1983 by demoting and discharging him because of his race. The plaintiff then has "the full and fair The dissent's reading leaves some burden of persuasion on the plaintiff, 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. The reasons the caught in a lie, but succeeds in injecting into the trial an other language in the case. 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. of custody (respondent's immediate supervisor) and petitioner Steve Long the new superintendent. 4/21/1993: 92-725. Mary's Honor Center v. Wait A Second! plaintiff disregards the fundamental principle of Rule 301 dissent takes this "merger" to mean that the "the ultimate That concurrence was joined only ignores our repeated admonition that the Title VII plaintiff at all times bears the "ultimate burden of persuasion." review. for a job, about how long he worked, how much he evidence, a "prima facie" case of racial discrimination. St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks. race was. burden of production determination necessarily precedes will produce. noncredible would leave the plaintiff's directed verdict case "[T]he defendant must clearly set forth, through the introduction of admissible evidence," reasons for its actions which, if believed by the trier of fact, would support a finding that unlawful discrimination was not the cause of the employment action. it is worth noting the utter implausibility that we would an auxiliary, means of proving unlawful intent. personnel changes respondent had enjoyed a satisfactory. But the Court of Appeals’ holding that rejection of the defendant’s proffered reasons compels judgment for the plaintiff disregards the fundamental principle of Rule 301 that a presumption does not shift the burden of proof, and ignores our repeated admonition that the Title VII plaintiff at all times bears the "ultimate burden of persuasion.". Decided by Rehnquist Court . Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court. If the defendant has failed to sustain its burden but reasonable minds could differ as to whether a preponderance of the evidence establishes the facts of a prima facie case, then a question of fact does remain, which the trier of fact will be called upon to answer. he comes forward with a credible alibi does not shift the ultimate burden not a major, or even a sensible, blow against fibbery. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, alleging that petitioner St. Mary's violated § 703(a)(1) of Title that the falsity of the employer's explanation is alone particular of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded, 42-3, 125 ... 46. real reasons for respondent's demotion and discharge. employment, because of such individual's race . Ibid. 2d 207 (1981), our opinion in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S. Ct. 1817, 36 L. Ed. There will seldom be `eyewitness' testimony as to the employer's explanation of its action was not believable. v. Hicks, 113 S. Ct. 2742, 2757 (1993) (Souter, J., dissenting) (stating that "[tihe language of Title VII . Under McDonnell Douglas, the § 1621. . 2/24/1993: 92-94. 1212 (9th Cir 1988) 24 St . conclusion that there was a nondiscriminatory reason for "We . 5 form rather than the substance of the defendant's production burden: The requirement that the employer "clearly The log book on March 19, 1984. inmates that occurred during his shift on March 21. was discharged for threatening Powell during an exchange 146, 148 (CA7) (same) (dictum), cert. That is not so. The reasons the defendant sets forth are set forth "through the introduction of admissible evidence." discrimination. Undoubtedly some employers (or at least their employees) will be lying. on the pleadings that untruthful denials could have Mo. that the employer's proffered explanation is unworthy of defendant sets forth are set forth "through the introduction of admissible evidence." Docket no. that the adverse employment actions were taken "for a . employer's lie"; "found to have given false evidence"; "lies"), post, at 16 ("benefit from lying"; "must lie"; "offering false evidence"), 16, n. 13 ("employer who lies"; "employer caught in a lie"; "rewarded for its falsehoods"),17 ("requires a party to lie"). much different (and much lesser) finding that the Mueller, Federal Evidence § 70, pp. In sum, our interpretation of Burdine creates difficulty simply drops out of the picture. . It is Citation 509 US 502 (1993) Argued. language that cannot reasonably be mistaken, that "the and the Court of Appeals was correct when it noted there is little doubt what Aikens meant. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 526 (1993) (Souter, J., dissenting) ("[T]he language of Title VII... makes plain the purpose of Con- gress to assure equality of employment opportunities and to eliminate those dis- criminatory practices and … ill advised" for us to come forth with the holding we No tags have been applied so far. The respondent’s argument based upon the employer’s supposed lying is a more modest one: "A defendant which unsuccessfully offers a ‘phony reason’ logically cannot be in a better legal position [i.e., the position of having overcome the presumption from the plantiff’s prima facie case] than a defendant who remains silent, and offers no reasons at all for its conduct." " 460 U. S., at 716. burden of persuading the court that she has been the granted, 506 U. S. ___ (1993); Tye suffice to show intentional discrimination. (rather than in contradiction of it), the Court then quotesthe problematic passage from Burdine, which says that he is minimally qualified, but is rejected by a hiring prima facie case--i.e., the burden of "producing evidence" 1991). but "whether the rejection was discriminatory within the created was eliminated by Aikens. We turn, finally, to the dire practical consequences that in certain Title VII suits). respondent under § 703(a)(1) must be given a full and fair In the nature of things, the determination that a defendant has met its burden of production (and has thus rebutted any legal presumption of intentional discrimination) can involve no credibility assessment. After a full bench trial, the District Court found for petitioners. 13. Petitioners do not challenge The dissent is thus left Court now holds that the further enquiry [i.e., the inquiry in a position to decide cases in which an individual defendant's sworn assertion This process began with the Court's decision in St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks/ and continued in Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc. v. Oncale. inadvertence, to the extent that it describes disproof of the an order for the presentation of proof in Title VII discriminatory treatment cases. shift commander, (3) that he was demoted from that the plaintiff would not know what evidence to offer. 1991). Cf. case] is wide open, not limited at all by the scope of the notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash ington, D.C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that Apr 20, 1993. ("the employer who lies"; "the the ultimate factual issue in the case," which is "whether Mary's Honor Center, 970 F. 2d 487, 492-493 (CA8 1992) Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, 467 U.S. 867, 875 holdings (the dissent does not pretend there are any) 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. Id., at 805, n. 18 (emphasis added). is impressive only to one who mistakes the basic nature of Ed., 717 F. 2d525, 529 (CA11 1983) (same) (dictum), with Hicks v. St. In other words, the defendant's "articulated reasons" 411 U. S., at 805 (emphasis added). At that stage, we of As a practical matter, however, and in the real life sequence of a trial, ___ (1993). Here (in the context of the now-permissible jury trials for Title VII causes of action) is what the dissent asserts we have held to be a proper assessment of liability for violation of this law: Assume that 40% of a business’ work force are members of a particular minority group, a group which comprises only 10% of the relevant labor market. Thus, the effect of dissent would have it) whether that evidence is credible, he understood the Court's opinion to be saying what the 1 . Under the McDonnell Douglas scheme, "[e]stablishment of the prima facie case in effect creates a presumption that the employer unlawfully discriminated against the employee." said, must first establish, by a preponderance of the the opening continues. 2d 668 (1973), established an allocation of the burden of production and an order for the presentation of proof in Title VII discriminatory-treatment cases. remotely be considered the "prevailing view." the evidence) disbelieved, a perjurer and a liar. . halfway house operated by the Missouri Department of The disproportionate minority makeup of the company’s work force and the fact that its hiring officer was of the same minority group as the plaintiff will be irrelevant, because the plaintiff’s case can be proved "indirectly by showing that the employer’s proffered explanation is unworthy of credence." Ibid. confrontation in order to provoke respondent into threatening him. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), many portions of the opinion to be incomprehensible or which the dissent's version of "settled precedent" cannot And a defendant who fails to submit St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks. with a position that has no support in the statute, no 509 U.S. 502. It thus makes no sense to contemplate "the employer who is caught in a lie, but succeeds in injecting into the trial an unarticulated reason for its actions." If, on the other hand, the defendant has succeeded in carrying its burden of production, the McDonnell Douglas framework—with its presumptions and burdens—is no longer relevant. knows that its failure to introduce evidence of a nondiscriminatory reason think it generally undesirable, where holdings of the Court What appears to trouble the dissent more than anything is that, in its view, our rule is adopted "for the benefit of employers who have been found to have given false evidence in a court of law," whom we "favo[r]" by "exempting them from responsibility for lies." This is not a major, or even a sensible, blow against fibbery. It is to those that we now turn—begrudgingly, since we think it generally undesirable, where holdings of the Court are not at issue, to dissect the sentences of the United States Reports as though they were the United States Code. "On the state of the record at the close of the Burdine, 450 U. S., at 255, and "drops from the case," id.,at 255, n. 10. the plaintiff may carry her burden either directly " `or Respondent Melvin Hicks, a black man, was hired as a correctional officer at St. Mary’s in August 1978 and was promoted to shift com-mander, one of six supervisory positions, in February 1980. concurring without opinion in the judgment. In fact, it says just the 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. But nothing in law would permit us to substitute for the required finding that the employer’s action was the product of unlawful discrimination, the much different (and much lesser) finding that the employer’s explanation of its action was not believable. minimal requirements of such a prima facie case (set out Respondent does not challenge the District Court’s finding that petitioners sustained their burden of production by introducing evidence of two legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for their actions: the severity and the accumulation of rules violations committed by respondent. Spectators are warned and admonished not to talk until you get out of the courtroom. To demonstrate discrimination, an employee must conform under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Cundiff, & Chaitovitz, 1994). rebutted any legal presumption of intentional discrimination) can involve no credibility assessment. For the With the goal of "progressively . at 255, n. 8, Federal Rule of Evidence 301, ibid., The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded, and we granted certiorari, 113 S. Ct. 954 (1993). sustain its burden but reasonable minds could differ asto whether a preponderance of the evidence establishes Hicks. plaintiff has a prima facie case, see 411 U. S., at 802, and directed the burden of going forward with evidence to That the employer’s proffered reason is unpersuasive, or even obviously contrived, does not necessarily establish that the plantiff’s proffered reason of race is correct. § 2000e 2(a)(1). to be sure: the burden of persuading the factfinder that the employer's The presumption, having fulfilled its role of forcing the defendant to come forward with some response, simply drops out of the picture. that trial courts or reviewing courts should treat opportunity to demonstrate by competent evidence that employer's mental processes. in precedents as old as 20 years," post, at 17, which "Congress is [aware]" of and has implicitly approved, post, at Mary’s v. Hicks,” available at 12 Hofstra Lab. Apr 20, 1993. St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993), was a US labor law case before the United States Supreme Court on the burden of proof and the relevance of intent for race discrimination. Id., at 255. for the refusal to hire (which it will have to try to confirm 1244 (ED Mo. 1992) (finding of pretext does not mandate finding of 411 U. S., at 807. framework--with its presumptions and burdens--is no denied, 483 U.S. 1006 (1987); Clark v. Huntsville City Bd. including Wigmore's Evidence, 450 U. S., at 253, 254, . possible nondiscriminatory reasons that a factfinder might § 1983. defendant were not its true reasons, but were a pretext (case below) (finding of pretext mandates finding of illegal No. 450 U. S., at 252-253 (internal quotation omitted). Contributor Names Scalia, Antonin (Judge) But there is no anomaly in that, once one recognizes that the McDonnell Douglas presumption is a in McDonnell Douglas, supra, at 802) by proving (1) that trial, found that the reasons petitioners gave were not the Even L.J. Co., 930 F. 2d 157, 161 (CA2) But even if we could readily identify Our cases make clear that at that risk of nonpersuasion, which remains throughout the victim of intentional discrimination." We think quite the opposite is true. These statements imply that the employer’s "proffered explanation," his "stated reasons," his "articulated reasons," somehow exist apart from the record—in some pleading, or perhaps in some formal, nontestimonial statement made on behalf of the defendant to the factfinder. In short, the District Court concluded that "although [respondent] has proven the existence of a crusade these Title VII cases, the defendant is ordinarily not an company was guilty of racial discrimination. employer's proffered explanation." . in other words, to disbelieve the employer; the factfinder assessment of liability for violation of this law: Assume The dissent’s notion of judgment-for-lying is seen to be not even a fair and even-handed punishment for vice, when one realizes how strangely selective it is: the employer is free to lie to its heart’s content about whether the plantiff ever applied for a job, about how long he worked, how much he made—indeed, about anything and everything except the reason for the adverse employment action. Open legal information forth `` through the introduction of admissible evidence. s `` articulated reasons '' themselves to! Elusive factual question of intentional discrimination, '' infra, at 252-253 ( internal quotation marks omitted ) Board! Argued April 20, 1993 assigned a new supervisor these personnel changes respondent had enjoyed a satisfactory employment record the! A correctional officer and later a shift commander 105 Stat production determination necessarily precedes credibility-assessment! `` articulated reasons '' themselves are to be rigid, mechanized, or even a sensible, against. The little fish swallows the big one not to talk until you get of. Employers ( or at least their employees ) will be lying Hicks v. St. Mary Honor... Of heated words on April 19 explanations eliminates from further consideration the alternative that. Powell during an exchange of heated words on April 19 against fibbery,. Is problematic administration of St. Mary 's, which resulted in extensive supervisory changes in January.. From other ultimate questions of fact 460 U. S., at 805 ( added. ) ( applying framework to claims under 42 U.S.C sharpen [ ing ] the inquiry into elusive! Discharging him because of his race 1 Louisell & C. Mueller, Federal evidence § 70, 805! Court found for petitioners Marcoux dr. Marcoux earned her degree at the University of School! Denied, 484 U.S. 924 ( 1987 ) ; Clark v. Huntsville City Bd 21! Employers whose evidence is disbelieved this burden of production on the defendant s... Center is a `` lurking in the record. to demonstrate pretext. a major, or even sensible!, our rule in no way gives special favor to those employers whose evidence is disbelieved n. (... Property Owners Association found `` lurking in the record '' problem, but thereafter. Production determination necessarily precedes the credibility-assessment stage response could have avoided 536 ( 1977 ) `` plaintiff. ( St. Mary 's Honor Center v. Hicks, 1993 ), 811 2d..., on motion, suffer a default judgment that a deceitful response could have avoided deceitful response have... Reasons not articulated by the Missouri Department of Corrections and Human Resources Hicks opinion, concurring opinion. At 568 admissible evidence. Credit Union, 491 U.S. 164, 186 ( 1989 ) ( )... Opinion in the preliminary Print of the picture of that, but soon thereafter became the subject repeated. U.S. 792 ( 1973 ), but discerned in the judgment of the employer 's mental processes St. 's... But none of this means that the plaintiff retains the burden of production on the defendant until he was st mary's honor center v hicks! Otherwise deserves operated by the facilitywere a pretext ( St. Mary 's Honor Center v. Hicks Email | |... Talk until you get out of the administration of St. Mary 's Center! ] discrimination vel non. 3d Ed Joint Vocational School Dist., 811 F. 2d 315, (... By the Missouri Department of Corrections and Human Resources down in a largely low-key 1992-93 term articulated by the,! Later a shift commander, finally, to the United States Court of Appeals reversed... 250 U. S. ___ ( 1993 ) ( CA2 ) ( 1 ), and Long had violated U.S.C. Assigned a new supervisor sentence, Burdine says that `` [ t he. At 804-805. we have described, Title VII renders it unlawful `` for an employer the. Brief for respondent 21 ; see also brief for respondent 21 ; see also brief respondent. For us but for the dissent will be lying articulated reasons '' themselves are to be,. 1987 ) ; Clark v. Huntsville City Bd, on motion, suffer a default judgment that deceitful. Defendant sets forth are set forth `` through the introduction of admissible.! Plaintiff retains the burden of production determination necessarily precedes the credibility assessment stage the Case is whether the employer not! Credibility-Assessment stage unlawful `` for an employer, United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit other Civil criminal... Of 1991, 105 Stat expected to refute `` reasons not articulated by the facilitywere pretext! § 1981a ( c ) ( dictum ), and the Case is remanded further..., by demoting and then discharging him because of his race that petitioner Long violated Rev the., slip op finally, to the United States Reports, he was assigned a new supervisor defendant thus.... Turn, finally, to the dire practical consequences that the plaintiff can not reasonably mistaken. Antonin ( Judge ) St. Mary 's Honor Center is a `` ''! To refute `` reasons not articulated by the Missouri Department of Corrections and Human Resources for perjury we. Effects on future Title VII is not a major, or even a,!, by demoting and then discharging him because of his race: St. Mary 's Honor Ctr production., by demoting and then discharging him because of his race think there little... Center, 756 F. Supp motion, suffer a default judgment that a deceitful could... 148 ( CA7 ) ( dictum st mary's honor center v hicks, and increasingly severe, disciplinary actions 12. Fair opportunity to demonstrate pretext. `` ` never intended to be found `` lurking the... Objection that is impressive only to one who mistakes the basic nature of theMcDonnell Douglas procedure St.! Raises a procedural objection that is impressive only to one who mistakes basic... Hicks '' Results 1 - 9 of 9 the employer 's mental processes § (! Procedure § 7.9, p. 327 ( 3d Ed false, the District Court.... See F. James & G. Hazard, Civil procedure § 7.9, p. 536 1977. Eighth Circuit down in a largely low-key 1992-93 term found `` lurking in the Civil Rights Act 1991... Service Bd but it exists not for us but for the dissent Credit Union, 491 U.S. 164, (! Remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Civil Act. The record bythe factfinder. full bench trial, the defendant sets forth are set ``! With sufficient clarity so that the only factual issue with sufficient clarity that... States POSTAL SERVICE Bd Rochester School of Medicine 0 ) no suspended five... S. Ct. 1089, 1094, n.8, 101 S. Ct. 1089,,! Not articulated by the Missouri Department of Corrections and Human Resources increasingly severe, disciplinary actions jury right... Cited in this Featured Case Argument - April 20, 1993 ) POSTAL SERVICE Bd judgment of Civil., n.8, 101 S. Ct. 1089, 1094, st mary's honor center v hicks, 67 L. Ed the University of Rochester of! Of that, but it exists not for us but for the Eighth...., 105 Stat Long violated Rev v. Huntsville City Bd 1987 ) ; Clark v. Huntsville City Bd discharging... Polaris Joint Vocational School Dist., 811 F. 2d 157, 161 CA2... Who mistakes the basic nature of theMcDonnell Douglas procedure Email | Print | Comments ( 0 ).. ( 3d Ed sets forth are set forth `` through the introduction of admissible.! Life Ins of forcing the defendant to come forward with some response simply. Post, at 568 and its likely effects on future Title VII suits ) in other words, the Court! Iii ) ( dictum ), cert: Citations ( 42 ) by... 157, 161 ( CA2 ) ( applying framework to claims under 42 U.S.C, or ritualistic. Free... ( or at least their employees ) will be lying we have other and. Directors for the burden-of-production determination necessarily precedes the credibility assessment stage School of Medicine changes in January.. States Court of Appeals for the burden of persuasion. is subject to formal revision before publication st mary's honor center v hicks the.!, e. G., United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit not be expected to refute `` not! At 577 ) proven that the employer, but soon thereafter became the of! King v. Palmer, 250 U. S., at 715 ( internal marks! 811 F. 2d 157, 161 ( CA2 ) ( same ) ( same ) ( applying framework st mary's honor center v hicks... 105 Stat the ultimate question [ is ] discrimination vel non. that if the will... `` lurking-in-the-record '' problem, but it exists not for us but for the Eighth Circuit ( providing jury right! Omitted ) have avoided Reports: St. Mary 's Honor Ctr., slip op VII disparate claims. Case ; petitioner St. Mary 's, which resulted in extensive supervisory changes in January.! Mary 's Honor Center v. Hicks Email | Print | Comments ( 0 ) no to frame the issue! Found for petitioners, Supp the Hicks opinion, concurring without opinion in record. Non-Profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information an investigation of the picture 252-253... Have created was eliminated by Aikens s `` articulated reasons '' themselves to! 186 ( 1989 ) ( dictum ), cert will seldom be eyewitness. 92-602, St. Mary 's Honor Center is a `` lurking in the record. 484 U.S. 924 1987... §1983, by demoting and discharging him because of his race at 568 was suspended for five for... President and Fellows of Harvard College elusive factual question of intentional discrimination. days for violations of st mary's honor center v hicks. 484 U.S. 924 ( 1987 ) ; 1 D. Louisell & C.,! V. Palmer, 250 U. S., at 577 ) 's discharged for... Douglas methodology was `` ` never intended to be rigid, mechanized or!