| 翻訳と辞書 |
| Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine ： ウィキペディア英語版 |
Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine
''Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine'' was a United States Supreme Court case.
In ''Burdine'', a female employee alleged that the defendant's failure to promote her and subsequent decision to terminate her were premised on illegal gender discrimination.〔Id. at 251.〕 In holding that the circuit court misconstrued the defendant's evidentiary burden, the Supreme Court attempted to set out the proper approach.〔Id. at 252. The court of appeals held that the defendant carried the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he had legitimate reasons for the employment decision, and that others promoted and hired were better qualified than the plaintiff. Id.〕 The Court concluded that the ultimate burden of persuasion remained with the plaintiff throughout the trial.〔ID. at 253; see also 9 J. WIGMORE, EVIDENCE IN TRIALS AT COMMON LAW §§ 2485-2489 (1985) (contending that burden of persuasion never shifts).〕 The Court explained that the defendant's burden was merely an intermediate evidentiary burden requiring the defendant to sustain only the burden of production, never the burden of persuasion.〔450 U.S. 248, 253-54 (1981).〕 The burden of proof, therefore, never actually shifted from the plaintiff to the defendant but remained with the plaintiff.〔 Id. at 253〕 Furthermore, the Court specified that to rebut the plaintiff's prima facie case, the defendant must simply set forth the reasons for the plaintiff's rejection.〔Burdine, 450 U.S. at 257.〕 Specifically, the employer must create a genuine issue as to whether he intended to discriminate.〔Id. at 254.〕
In limiting the defendant's burden merely to producing evidence and placing the entire burden of persuasion on the plaintiff, the Court in Burdine made it more difficult for the plaintiff to succeed with a disparate treatment claim.〔See Smalls, The Burden of Proof in Title VII Cases, 25 HOW. L.J. 247, (1982), at 265 (commenting that Burdine approach creates severe evidentiary burden for plaintiff).〕 A defendant could sustain his or her duty to produce evidence simply by articulating a nondiscriminatory justification for the employment decision.〔Burdine, 450 U.S. at 253.〕 Because this burden is so easily met, the plaintiff will almost always be forced to persuade a court that the defendant's reasons are pretexts and not the true reasons for the employment decision.〔See B. SCHLEI & P. GROSSMAN, EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION LAW 1326 (2d ed. 1983) at 1316-17 (asserting that majority of disparate treatment cases turn on ability of plaintiff to demonstrate that business reason was pretext for actual discriminatory intent).〕 The plaintiff's burden, therefore, is magnified because he will have to proffer convincing evidence analyzing the employer's intent.〔See Smalls, supra at 265. To illustrate pretext a plaintiff may offer direct or comparative evidence of discriminatory intent. See Corbett, supra note 8, at 231 (describing alternative methods of proof for deriving pretext). Direct evidence includes discriminatory statements or admissions. Id. Comparative evidence involves showing that the employer's justifications have been applied only to certain protected individuals or that the employer has departed from its normal policies. Id. The plaintiff usually uses statistics to make a comparative showing. Id. At this last evidentiary stage, the plaintiff's burden of showing pretext merges with his burden of persuading the court that the defendant has a discriminatory motive. Texas Dep't of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 256 (1981); cf. Clark v. Huntsville City Bd. of Educ., 717 F.2d 525, 529 (11th Cir. 1983) (holding that Title VII liability requires plaintiff to establish that employer's business justification was mere pretext for discriminatory action and that employer acted with discriminatory intent).〕 Consequently, this higher evidentiary burden has created an increased incentive for plaintiffs to allege discrimination under the disparate impact theory where the employer's intent is not at issue.〔See Comment, Disparate Impact and Subjective Employment Criteria Under Title VII, 54 U. CHI. L. REV. 957, 960-62 (1987) (discussing growing importance of disparate impact theory).〕
==See also==
*List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 450
抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』
■ウィキペディアで「Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine」の詳細全文を読む
スポンサード リンク
| 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース |
Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.
|
|