On March 10, 2025, Justice Clarence Thomas issued a dissent following the Supreme Court's denial of certiorari for Ronald Hittle v. City of Stockton, California, 604 U.S. ___ (2025), a religious discrimination case involving a fire chief terminated after attending a leadership conference at a church. In his dissent, Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, questioned whether it is time for the Court to revisit the longstanding McDonnell Douglas framework used in employment discrimination cases. This framework, which has been a cornerstone of Title VII discrimination claims since 1973, is utilized by courts and agencies where the employee attempts to prove intentional discrimination through circumstantial evidence. Thomas's dissent comes as no surprise due to his unique perspective on the complexities and inefficiencies of the current framework as former Chairmen of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Ultimately, Thomas's dissent urges the Court to reconsider the doctrine's role – if any – in Title VII litigation because its application in lower courts has caused "inefficiency and unfairness," particularly in the summary judgment context.
In McDonnell Douglass, the Court clarified the three-part burden-shifting framework to determine whether an employer's actions were discriminatory. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). Under this framework, an employee must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination. The burden then "shifts" to the employer to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the action. If satisfied, the burden shifts back to the employee to demonstrate that the employer's reason was merely pretext for discrimination.
Justice Thomas's dissent highlights concerns regarding whether the use of the framework in lower courts comports with the summary judgment standard. Courts have differing views on the best way to apply the framework at this stage in litigation. Thomas points to commentary from lower court judges, including Justice Gorsuch and Kavanagh, acknowledging various challenges with consistent application of the framework. Some courts treat the framework as the "exclusive method for evaluating evidence" at the summary judgment stage, which Thomas argues may lead a court to overlook the other ways an employee can prove its claim. In all, Thomas dissents in efforts to bring attention to the challenges posed by the doctrine and its use as an evidentiary tool.
Why should employers care? As the primary framework used in employment discrimination litigation, any shift in the Court's stance on the utility of McDonnell Douglas will significantly impact employers' assessment and defense of Title VII claims. Thomas's dissent signals that the Court may soon revisit the framework to clarify its role in Title VII litigation. The KMK Labor and Employment team will continue to monitor any developments and is here to assist you in analyzing strategies to successfully defend against discrimination claims.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
