## Facts

- Furnco Construction Corp. performed specialized blast-furnace relining work and hired bricklayers on a job-by-job basis through the job superintendent.
- For the project at issue, the superintendent did not accept applications at the jobsite.
- The superintendent hired only bricklayers he knew to be skilled or who were recommended as skilled, consistent with an asserted industry practice.
- Three Black bricklayers sought employment; two were not hired despite being qualified, and a third was hired only after a substantial delay, even though the superintendent previously knew his work.
- The workers sued under Title VII, alleging racial discrimination in hiring (disparate treatment).
- Furnco asserted its method was used to secure competent, efficient workers and to protect safety and business performance.

## Issues

1. Under the Title VII disparate-treatment framework, what is sufficient for an employer to rebut a prima facie case—must the employer disprove discrimination or only produce a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason?
2. May a court require an employer to adopt a particular application and screening system to increase consideration of minority applicants, based on a prima facie showing or disagreement with the employer’s method?

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Seventh Circuit and remanded.
- The Court held that a prima facie case does not equal an ultimate finding of intentional discrimination.
- The Court held the employer’s rebuttal burden after a prima facie case is one of production: articulating a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the challenged decision.
- The Court rejected the appellate court’s substitution of its own preferred hiring procedure for the employer’s method, absent proof that the method was used as a vehicle for discrimination.
- The Court indicated that once a legitimate reason is produced, the remaining question is whether the reason is pretextual—a factual issue primarily for the trial court.

## Legal Principles

- A Title VII prima facie case is a procedural device that permits an inference of discrimination in the absence of an explanation; it is not a final determination of liability.
- After a prima facie showing, the employer must articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason; the employer does not bear the burden of persuasion on intent.
- The plaintiff retains the ultimate burden to prove intentional discrimination at all times.
- Title VII forbids decisions made “because of” protected characteristics; it does not require employers to adopt the hiring method that would yield the highest minority hiring rate.
- Courts should not impose detailed hiring systems merely because they might increase minority consideration; the proper inquiry is whether the employer’s stated reason is a pretext for discrimination.

## Conclusion

The Court held that, under Title VII’s disparate-treatment framework, an employer rebuts a prima facie case by producing a legitimate, nondiscriminatory explanation, with the plaintiff retaining the burden to prove pretext and discriminatory intent, and that courts may not mandate specific hiring procedures simply to increase minority hiring absent proof of discrimination.


Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567 (1978)