Under the McDonnell Douglas Burden-Shifting Scheme (hereinafter, “McDonnell Douglas“), may a Washington State plaintiff establish the pretext-prong by comparison, when pursuing a claim of disparate treatment? Here’s my point of view.
(IMPORTANT: 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
MCDONNELL DOUGLAS BURDEN-SHIFTING SCHEME
In the summary judgment context, to succeed on a claim of disparate treatment using McDonnell Douglas, the plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination. See Noyes v. Kelly Servs., 488 F.3d 1163, 1168 (9th Cir. 2007).
If the plaintiff states a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the defendant-employer to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the challenged action. Chuang v. Univ. of Cal. Davis, Bd. Of Trs., 225 F.3d 1115, 1123-24 (9th Cir. 2000) (quotation marks omitted).
If the employer meets this burden, the plaintiff must then show a triable issue of material fact as to whether the defendant’s stated reason is mere pretext for unlawful discrimination. Hawn v. Exec. Jet Mgmt, Inc., 615 F.3d 1151, 1155 (9th Cir. 2010) (quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added). This last requirement is know as the prextext prong.
THE PRETEXT PRONG
Generally, to prove pretext under McDonnell Douglas, a plaintiff must show that the defendant’s articulated reasons
(1) had no basis in fact,
(2) were not really motivating factors for its decision,
(3) were not temporally connected to the adverse employment action, or
(4) were not motivating factors in employment decisions for other employees in the same circumstances.
Id. (internal citation omitted) (emphasis and paragraph formatting added). The fourth element allows a plaintiff to prove pretext by using comparison.
PROVING PRETEXT BY COMPARISON
Accordingly, to prove pretext by comparison in Washington State, a plaintiff must show that
(1) an employee outside the protected class
(2) committed acts of comparable seriousness
(3) but was not demoted or similarly disciplined.
Johnson v. Department of Social & Health Services, 907 P.2d 1223, 80 Wn.App. 212, 227 (Wash.App. Div. 2 1996) (referencing Hiatt v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 26 F.3d 761, 770 (7th Cir.1994)) (paragraph formatting added).
Arguably, acts of comparable seriousness need not be violations of identical company disciplinary rules. See, e.g., Hiatt v. Rockwell Intern. Corp., 26 F.3d 761, 770 (7th Cir. 1994) (Court previously held that “acts of comparable seriousness need not be violations of identical company disciplinary rules”) (internal citation omitted). Plaintiffs are free to compare similar conduct, focusing more on the nature of the misconduct rather than on specific company rules. Id. (internal citation omitted).
OCCASIONAL LENIENCY NOT ENOUGH
However, plaintiffs may need to demonstrate more than occasional leniency toward other employees who had engaged in conduct of a similar nature. See id. at 771 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). Ultimately, “incomplete or arbitrary comparisons reveal nothing concerning discrimination.” Id. (internal citations omitted).
READ OUR RELATED ARTICLES
» Definition of Prima Facie Case**
» Disparate Treatment: A Closer Look**
» Disparate Treatment: Bona Fide Occupational Qualification**
» Disparate Treatment vs. Disparate Impact Discrimination**
» Disparate Treatment via Hostile Work Environment**
» McDonnell Douglas Framework (Step 1): The Prima Facie Case**
» Prima Facie Case: The Replacement Element**
» The Prima Facie Case: Disparate Treatment
» The Prima Facie Case: Disparate Treatment via Direct Evidence
» WLAD: Disparate Treatment via Hostile Work Environment
** (NOTE: This is an external link that will take you to our Williams Law Group Blog.)
LEARN MORE
If you would like to learn more, then 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.