St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks

E166648

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.

All labels observed (2)

How this entity was disambiguated

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 applies the McDonnell Douglas framework.
causeOfAction alleged race discrimination in employment under Title VII
citation 509 U.S. 502
citationStyle 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
court Supreme Court of the United States
decidedDate 1993-06-25
decisionDate 1993-06-25
decisionType 5–4 decision
dissentingOpinionBy Justice David H. Souter
linked to: 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 Justice Byron R. White
linked to: Byron R. White

Justice Harry A. Blackmun
linked to: Harry A. Blackmun

Justice John Paul Stevens
linked to: John Paul Stevens
joinedByInMajority Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy
linked to: Anthony M. Kennedy

Justice Clarence Thomas
linked to: Clarence Thomas

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 Justice Antonin Scalia
linked to: 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 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

How these facts were elicited

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 Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993)
linked to: St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks