What are the main theories of workplace discrimination?
Reading: McDonnell Douglas v. Green
(1973) (on blackboard)
At will employment vs. govt – intervention on behalf of employees – statutory
Disparate impact vs disparate treatment
Title 7 vii – the coverage covers 15 employees, Employers , labor orgs and
employer agencies. employees not independent contractors
Protection: prohibits employment discrimination cuz of race, color, religion,
sex or national origin.
What is discrimination? – no statutory definition.
Section 703a1- can’t discriminate against ppl cuz of compensation, terms
and conditions and privledges plus the protection reasons.
Section 704a –
Facts of the case:
green applies for new mechanic job. Company didn’t rehire him cuz
green says its due to raise, stallin- lockin that he began – company says its cuz of his civil
rights activity – goes to eeoc. Illegal to protect cuz of civil rights issues in work place
was an aerospace company in
at the time of the lawsuit, but has since been
was a black mechanic and laboratory technician laid off by McDonnell
Douglas in 1964 during a reduction in force at the company.
Green, a long-time activist in the
civil rights movement
, protested that his discharge was racially
motivated. He and others used cars to block roads to McDonnell Douglas factories. On one occasion,
someone used a chain to lock the front door of a McDonnell Douglas downtown business office,
preventing employees from leaving, though it was not certain whether Green was responsible.
Soon after the locked-door incident, McDonnell Douglas advertised for vacant mechanic positions, for
which Green was qualified. Green was not hired, McDonnell Douglas citing his participation in blocking
traffic and chaining the building.
Green subsequently filed a complaint with the EEOC, sued in
U.S. District Court
, and later appealed the
decision to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
before the Supreme Court agreed to hear the
The Court wrote:
1. A complainant's right to bring suit under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not confined to charges as to
which the EEOC has made a reasonable-cause finding, and the District Court's error in holding to the
contrary was not harmless since the issues raised with respect to 703 (a) (1) were not identical to those
with respect to 704 (a) and the dismissal of the former charge may have prejudiced respondent's efforts at
2. In a private, non-class-action complaint under Title VII charging racial employment discrimination, the
complainant has the burden of establishing a prima facie case, which he can satisfy by showing that (i) he
belongs to a racial minority; (ii) he applied and was qualified for a job the employer was trying to fill; (iii)
though qualified, he was rejected; and (iv) thereafter the employer continued to seek applicants with
3. Here, the Court of Appeals, though correctly holding that respondent proved a prima facie case, erred