The Employment Law Toolkit

Full Answer Section

• Requiring actual evidence would make it more difficult to hold employers accountable for discrimination.

Overall, I believe that the advantages of requiring actual evidence of discrimination in disparate treatment cases outweigh the disadvantages. Requiring actual evidence would make the legal system more fair and efficient, and it would make it more difficult for both plaintiffs and defendants to abuse the system.

Is an employer’s burden really met after the employer “articulates” a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for rejecting the employee?

No, an employer's burden is not really met after the employer "articulates" a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for rejecting the employee. The employer must also prove that the nondiscriminatory reason was the actual reason for the rejection.

The McDonnell Douglas framework, which is used to analyze disparate treatment cases, requires the plaintiff to first establish a prima facie case of discrimination. To do this, the plaintiff must show that they are a member of a protected class, that they were qualified for the position they were seeking, and that they were rejected for the position despite their qualifications.

Once the plaintiff has established a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for the rejection. If the employer is able to do this, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to show that the employer's reason was pretextual, meaning that it was not the actual reason for the rejection.

The plaintiff can show that the employer's reason was pretextual by providing evidence of disparate treatment, such as evidence that the employer treated similarly situated employees outside of the protected class differently. The plaintiff can also show that the employer's reason was pretextual by providing evidence that the employer's reason was not credible or was not supported by the facts.

Therefore, an employer's burden is not really met after the employer "articulates" a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for rejecting the employee. The employer must also prove that the nondiscriminatory reason was the actual reason for the rejection.

Does the court say that Green must be kept on in spite of his illegal activities?

No, the court does not say that Green must be kept on in spite of his illegal activities. The court simply says that Green's illegal activities cannot be used as a pretext for discrimination.

In the case of Green v. R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co., the Supreme Court held that an employer cannot use an employee's illegal activities as a pretext for discrimination. In that case, Green was a black employee who was fired after he was arrested for dealing drugs. Green sued his employer for racial discrimination, and the employer argued that Green had been fired because of his illegal activities.

The Supreme Court ruled that the employer could not use Green's illegal activities as a pretext for discrimination. The Court held that the employer must prove that the illegal activities were the actual reason for the firing, and not just a pretext for discrimination.

Therefore, the court does not say that Green must be kept on in spite of his illegal activities. The court simply says that Green's illegal activities cannot be used as a pretext for discrimination.

Conclusion

The legal system is complex and there are many factors to consider when answering questions about disparate treatment cases. However, I hope that this response has given you a better understanding of the issues involved.

Sample Solution

There are advantages and disadvantages to requiring actual evidence of discrimination in disparate treatment cases rather than permitting an inference.

Advantages:

• Requiring actual evidence would make it more difficult for plaintiffs to bring frivolous lawsuits.
• Requiring actual evidence would force plaintiffs to do more work to build their cases, which could lead to better outcomes for both plaintiffs and defendants.
• Requiring actual evidence would make it easier for employers to defend themselves against discrimination claims.

Disadvantages:

• Requiring actual evidence would make it more difficult for plaintiffs to prove discrimination, especially in cases where the discrimination is subtle or indirect.
• Requiring actual evidence would discourage plaintiffs from bringing discrimination claims, even when they have legitimate grievances.