## Facts

- The Texas Department of Community Affairs (TDCA) employed Joyce Ann Burdine as an accounting clerk in its Public Service Careers Division and promoted her; she was often assigned additional duties.
- Burdine applied for a supervisory Project Director position; the position remained unfilled for about six months.
- Facing a need to appoint a permanent Project Director and reorganize to avoid losing federal funding, TDCA selected a male employee from another division as Project Director.
- During the reorganization, TDCA terminated three division employees, including Burdine, leaving a male as the only professional employee in the division.
- TDCA later rehired Burdine in another division at a salary equal to the Project Director’s salary.
- Burdine alleged that the failure to promote her and her termination were based on sex discrimination in violation of Title VII.

## Issues

1. In a Title VII disparate-treatment case using the *McDonnell Douglas* framework, after the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, does the employer bear only a burden of production to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason, or a burden of persuasion to prove such reasons by a preponderance of the evidence?
2. May a court require the employer, at the rebuttal stage, to prove by “objective evidence” that the persons hired or retained were better qualified than the plaintiff?

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously reversed and remanded.
- The Court held that, after a prima facie case, the employer bears only a burden of production to explain clearly the nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions.
- The Court held that the ultimate burden of persuasion on intentional discrimination remains with the plaintiff at all times.
- The Court rejected the rule requiring the employer to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that its reasons were legitimate or to prove superior qualifications by objective evidence.

## Legal Principles

- Under *McDonnell Douglas*, the plaintiff must prove a prima facie case; the employer must then articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason through admissible evidence; the plaintiff must then prove the stated reason is pretext for discrimination.
- The employer’s rebuttal obligation is a burden of production, not persuasion; it need not convince the factfinder that it was actually motivated by the proffered reasons.
- The employer’s explanation must be clear and reasonably specific so the plaintiff has a fair opportunity to show pretext.
- Title VII permits an employer to choose among equally qualified candidates so long as the decision is not based on unlawful criteria; the employer need not prove “objective” superior qualifications at the rebuttal stage.

## Conclusion

The Court clarified that, in Title VII disparate-treatment cases, an employer responding to a prima facie case must produce a clear, specific, nondiscriminatory explanation supported by admissible evidence, while the plaintiff always retains the ultimate burden to prove intentional discrimination by showing the stated reasons were pretextual.


Tex. Dep’t of Cmty. Affs. v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (1981)