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 Disambiguation Statements Elicitation Referenced by

All labels observed (3)

Label	Occurrences
St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks canonical	5
St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993)	1
St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993)	1

How this entity was disambiguated

This entity first appeared as the object of triple T1461665 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.

NED1 Entity disambiguation (via context triple) gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07

Target entity: St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks
Context triple: [McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, influenced, St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks]

A. Adkins v. Children’s Hospital
Adkins v. Children’s Hospital is a 1923 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down a minimum wage law for women in the District of Columbia, marking a key moment in the Lochner-era protection of freedom of contract.
B. Corrigan v. Buckley
Corrigan v. Buckley is a 1926 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld the enforceability of racially restrictive covenants in property deeds, paving the way for widespread legalized housing segregation until later overturned in effect by subsequent civil rights rulings.
C. Argersinger v. Hamlin
Argersinger v. Hamlin is a 1972 U.S. Supreme Court case that extended the right to counsel to defendants in misdemeanor cases that may result in imprisonment.
D. Maryland v. Wirtz
Maryland v. Wirtz was a 1968 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the extension of federal minimum wage and overtime provisions to employees of state-operated schools and hospitals under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
E. Lau v. Nichols
Lau v. Nichols is a landmark 1974 U.S. Supreme Court case that held public schools must take affirmative steps to help non-English-speaking students overcome language barriers to ensure equal educational opportunity under federal civil rights law.
F. None of above. chosen
G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.

NED2 Entity disambiguation (via description) gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07

Target entity: St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks
Target entity description: 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.

A. Adkins v. Children’s Hospital
Adkins v. Children’s Hospital is a 1923 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down a minimum wage law for women in the District of Columbia, marking a key moment in the Lochner-era protection of freedom of contract.
B. Corrigan v. Buckley
Corrigan v. Buckley is a 1926 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld the enforceability of racially restrictive covenants in property deeds, paving the way for widespread legalized housing segregation until later overturned in effect by subsequent civil rights rulings.
C. Argersinger v. Hamlin
Argersinger v. Hamlin is a 1972 U.S. Supreme Court case that extended the right to counsel to defendants in misdemeanor cases that may result in imprisonment.
D. Maryland v. Wirtz
Maryland v. Wirtz was a 1968 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the extension of federal minimum wage and overtime provisions to employees of state-operated schools and hospitals under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
E. Lau v. Nichols
Lau v. Nichols is a landmark 1974 U.S. Supreme Court case that held public schools must take affirmative steps to help non-English-speaking students overcome language barriers to ensure equal educational opportunity under federal civil rights law.
F. None of above. chosen

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. ⓘ linked to: McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green
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) ⓘ linked to: St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks
clarifies	the effect of proving pretext under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework. ⓘ
country	United States ⓘ linked to: United States of America
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 ⓘ linked to: William H. Rehnquist Justice Anthony M. Kennedy ⓘ linked to: Anthony M. Kennedy Justice Clarence Thomas ⓘ linked to: Clarence Thomas Justice Sandra Day O’Connor ⓘ linked to: 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. ⓘ linked to: United States of America
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 (7)

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

St. Mary’s Honor Center → employerInCase → St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks ⓘ

St. Mary’s Honor Center → partyTo → St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks ⓘ

Melvin Hicks → partyToCase → St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks ⓘ

Melvin Hicks → caseCitation → St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993) ⓘ