US Supreme Court won't revisit key test for proving workplace discrimination

By Daniel Wiessner

March 10 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday turned away a chance to revisit a test it created in the 1970s for determining whether plaintiffs have proven illegal employment discrimination, which two conservative justices said had "spawned enormous confusion."

The court denied a petition by Ronald Hittle, the former fire chief in Stockton, California, for review of a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that said he had failed to prove that he was fired because of his religion.

The 9th Circuit had applied the framework created by the Supreme Court in the 1973 case McDonnell Douglas v. Green for cases brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act that involve circumstantial rather than direct evidence of workplace discrimination.

Under McDonnell Douglas, employers can offer up legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for an employment decision, shifting the burden to workers to show that those reasons were a pretext for discrimination.

Courts are not required to use the McDonnell Douglas standard, but routinely do. And appeals courts have developed complicated bodies of legal precedent applying the test, while often disagreeing over how to do so.

Six appeals courts, for example, have said that plaintiffs must disprove the reasons employers give for taking an employment action in order to prevail. But six other courts have said that is not necessary, as long as a plaintiff provides other evidence of discrimination.

Hittle's petition had asked the Supreme Court to overrule McDonnell Douglas or, at least, to clarify how it applies.

Lawyers for the city did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Aaron Streett, a lawyer for Hittle, said it was unfortunate that he was denied an opportunity to present his case to a jury.

“Chief Hittle served his community faithfully and bravely for nearly 25 years and wanted the opportunity to clear his good name," Streett said in an email.

The Supreme Court in October denied a petition asking it to clarify how McDonnell Douglas applies at the summary judgment stage in so-called "mixed motive" cases where employers may have had both legitimate and discriminatory reasons to take action against a worker.

Hittle claims that he was unlawfully fired for attending a Christian leadership conference while he was on duty. The city says it was improper for Hittle to attend the event on the city's time, and that he showed favoritism toward Christian coworkers.

A federal judge granted summary judgment to the city in Hittle's 2022 lawsuit and the 9th Circuit last year affirmed, saying he had not shown that the city lacked a valid reason to terminate him.

Justice Clarence Thomas dissented on Monday, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch. Thomas said the McDonnell Douglas test was merely a way to evaluate evidence in discrimination cases, but that many courts had long treated it as a substantive legal standard that a plaintiff must meet to ultimately prove a claim.

"I am not aware of many precedents that have caused more confusion than this one," Thomas wrote. "By my best lights, a Title VII claim should survive summary judgment so long as the plaintiff establishes a genuine dispute of material fact about each element of his claim."

The case is Hittle v. Stockton, California, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 24-427.

For Hittle: Aaron Streett of Baker Botts

For the city: Robert Loeb of Orrick Herrington Sutcliffe

Read more:

US Supreme Court won't review test for 'mixed motive' bias claims