McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. Green

Supreme Court of the United States · 1973 · Property

411 U.S. 792 (1973)

Updated July 23, 2026

Title VIIEmployment discriminationBurden of proofPrima facie casePretextracial discriminationfailure to hireburden shifting

Facts

Green, a black mechanic and laboratory technician formerly employed by McDonnell Douglas, was laid off during a general workforce reduction in 1964. In protesting what he believed were racially motivated employment practices, he participated in an unlawful "stall-in" designed to block access to McDonnell's plant, was arrested for obstructing traffic, and pleaded guilty. When McDonnell later advertised for qualified mechanics, Green applied for reemployment, but McDonnell refused to rehire him, stating that his participation in the unlawful demonstrations was the reason. Green then filed a Title VII charge alleging that the refusal to rehire him was because of his race and civil rights activity.

Issue

Whether a Title VII plaintiff may pursue a § 703(a)(1) racial-discrimination claim without an EEOC reasonable-cause finding on that specific charge, and what order and allocation of proof govern a private, non-class Title VII claim alleging discriminatory refusal to hire. Also at issue was whether the employer's reliance on the applicant's unlawful protest activity was sufficient to rebut a prima facie case while still permitting the plaintiff to show pretext.

Rule

A Title VII complainant bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of racial discrimination by showing that he is a member of a racial minority, applied and was qualified for a job for which the employer was seeking applicants, was rejected despite his qualifications, and that after the rejection the position remained open and the employer continued to seek applicants of his qualifications. The burden then shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the rejection. If the employer does so, the plaintiff must be afforded a full and fair opportunity to prove by competent evidence that the stated reason was a pretext for racial discrimination or was discriminatorily applied.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Cleveland, Dana Brooks, a Black machinist, applied for an open maintenance position at Lakefront Fabrication Works, a fictional manufacturer. She met every listed qualification, was rejected, and the company continued advertising for applicants with the same credentials for several weeks.

If Dana sues for race discrimination in hiring, which additional showing best completes her initial prima facie case under the governing framework?

Explanation. The initial prima facie case is made by showing the applicant is a member of a racial minority, applied and was qualified for a job the employer was seeking to fill, was rejected despite qualifications, and that after rejection the position remained open while the employer continued to seek applicants of the plaintiff’s qualifications. No EEOC reasonable-cause finding is required, and direct proof of express hostility is not part of the prima facie formula.