IMPORTANT: All hyperlinks in this article with an asterisk (*) will take the reader away from this website to either our Williams Law Group Blog* or an official governmental website. This article is for informational purposes only and is based upon my point of view. Due to the rapidly changing nature of the law, we make no warranty or guarantee concerning the accuracy or reliability of the content in this article. No content on this site, regardless of date, should ever be used as a substitute for direct legal advice from your attorney. Please review our Disclaimer|Terms of Use|Privacy Policy before proceeding.
Advertisement
Can you prove employment discrimination without direct evidence?
answer:
Yes, plaintiffs can prove employment discrimination without direct evidence. In Washington State, “[a] plaintiff can establish a prima facie case [of employment discrimination] by either[:]
[1.] offering direct evidence of an employer’s discriminatory intent, or …
[2.] satisfying the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting test that gives rise to an inference of discrimination.
Alonso v. Qwest Communications Company, LLC, 178 Wn.App 734, 743-44 (Div. 2 2013) (citing Kastanis v. Educ. Emps. Credit Union, 122 Wn.2d 483, 491, 859 P.2d 26, 865 P.2d 507 (1993)) (emphasis, paragraph formatting, and hyperlinks added).
Accordingly, the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting test provides an alternative way for plaintiffs to establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination using indirect, circumstantial evidence instead of direct evidence.
The McDonnell Douglas Burden-Shifting Framework
The McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework* has three steps:
STEP 1*: The “plaintiff bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination, which creates a presumption of discrimination.” Scrivener v. Clark College*, 181 Wn.2d 439, 446, 334 P.3d 541, (2014) (citing Riehl v. Foodmaker, Inc., 152 Wn.2d 138, 149-50; Kastanis v. Educ. Emps. Credit Union, 122 Wn.2d 483, 490, 859 P.2d 26, 865 P.2d 507 (1993)) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted) (emphasis & hyperlink added).
STEP 2*: “[T]he burden shifts to the defendant, who must articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason* for the adverse employment action.” Mikkelsen v. Public Utility District No. 1 of Kittitas County*, 189 Wn.2d 516, 527 (Wash. 2017) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted) (emphasis & hyperlink added).
STEP 3*: “[I]f the defendant meets this burden, the plaintiff must produce sufficient evidence showing that the defendant’s alleged nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment action was a pretext*.” Id.* (internal citations omitted) (emphasis & hyperlink added).
Read Our Related Articles
»Employment Law 101: Definition of Circumstantial Evidence (WA State)
»McDonnell Douglas Framework (Step 1): The Prima Facie Case*
»McDonnell Douglas Framework (Step 2): The Employer’s Burden*
»McDonnell Douglas Framework (Step 3): Proving Pretext*
»Proving Discrimination: The Direct-Evidence Method
»The McDonnell Douglas Burden Shifting Framework*
»The Pretext Element: Self-Evaluations*
»The Pretext Element: Six Limitations*
»The Pretext Element: Two Methods of Proof*
»Using Circumstantial Evidence to Prove Employment Discrimination
*NOTE: This link will take you to our Williams Law Group Blog, an external website.
NEED HELP?
If you need legal assistance, consider contacting an experienced attorney to discuss your case. This article is not offered as legal advice and will not establish an attorney-client relationship with Law Office of Gregory A. Williams, or the author of this article; please refer to our Disclaimer | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy for more information.