St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks

E166648

Title VII case United States Supreme Court case employment discrimination case

St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks is a 1993 U.S. Supreme Court decision that tightened the burden on plaintiffs in employment discrimination cases by holding that proving an employer’s stated reason is pretextual does not automatically establish intentional discrimination.

Try in SPARQL Jump to: Surface forms Statements Referenced by

All labels observed (2)

Label	Occurrences
St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks canonical	2
St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993)	1

Statements (44)

Predicate	Object
instanceOf	Title VII case ⓘ United States Supreme Court case ⓘ employment discrimination case ⓘ
arguedDate	1993-04-20 ⓘ
burdenOfPersuasion	remains at all times with the plaintiff in a Title VII disparate-treatment case. ⓘ
burdenShiftingFramework	McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green ⓘ surface form: applies the McDonnell Douglas framework.
causeOfAction	alleged race discrimination in employment under Title VII ⓘ
citation	509 U.S. 502 ⓘ
citationStyle	St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks self-linksurface differs ⓘ surface form: St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993)
clarifies	the effect of proving pretext under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework. ⓘ
country	United States of America ⓘ surface form: United States
court	Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ
decidedDate	1993-06-25 ⓘ
decisionDate	1993-06-25 ⓘ
decisionType	5–4 decision ⓘ
dissentingOpinionBy	David H. Souter ⓘ surface form: Justice David H. Souter
docketNumber	92-602 ⓘ
effectOnPlaintiffs	tightened the burden on employment discrimination plaintiffs. ⓘ
holding	A plaintiff’s showing that the employer’s proffered reason is false or pretextual does not compel a finding of intentional discrimination as a matter of law. ⓘ The trier of fact must still be persuaded that the employer intentionally discriminated against the plaintiff. ⓘ
influenced	later Supreme Court decisions on employment discrimination burdens of proof ⓘ
issue	Whether rejection of the employer’s proffered reasons mandates judgment for the Title VII plaintiff. ⓘ
joinedByInDissent	Byron R. White ⓘ surface form: Justice Byron R. White Harry A. Blackmun ⓘ surface form: Justice Harry A. Blackmun John Paul Stevens ⓘ surface form: Justice John Paul Stevens
joinedByInMajority	William H. Rehnquist ⓘ surface form: Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist Anthony M. Kennedy ⓘ surface form: Justice Anthony M. Kennedy Clarence Thomas ⓘ surface form: Justice Clarence Thomas Sandra Day O’Connor ⓘ surface form: Justice Sandra Day O’Connor
jurisdiction	federal question jurisdiction ⓘ
language	English ⓘ
legalArea	civil rights law ⓘ employment discrimination law ⓘ
lowerCourt	United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ⓘ
majorityOpinionBy	Antonin Scalia ⓘ surface form: Justice Antonin Scalia
page	502 ⓘ
partyTypePetitioner	state-operated correctional facility ⓘ
petitioner	St. Mary’s Honor Center ⓘ
proceduralPosture	review of a judgment of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ⓘ
reporter	United States of America ⓘ surface form: U.S.
respondent	Melvin Hicks ⓘ
statuteInterpreted	Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ⓘ
subsequentCitation	often cited in federal employment discrimination cases ⓘ
volume	509 ⓘ

Referenced by (3)

Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green → influenced → St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks ⓘ

Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine → citedIn → St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks ⓘ

St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks → citationStyle → St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks self-linksurface differs ⓘ

this entity surface form: St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993)