|
|
Cummings v. Commonwealth11/1/2004
uires that we identify the elements of an unlawful sex discrimination case and whether Cummings' evidence, viewed most favorably to the University, satisfied those elements.
Our Supreme Court has adopted the federal analytical model established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) for considering whether an employer has engaged in unlawful discrimination. Allegheny Housing Rehabilitation Corporation, 516 Pa. 124, 532 A.2d. 315 (1987). The federal model for allocating the order of presentation and burden of proof is as follows:
The complainant in a Title VII trial must carry the initial burden under the statute of establishing a prima facie case of racial discrimination. This may be done by showing (i) that he belongs to a racial minority; (ii) that he applied and was qualified for a job for which the employer was seeking applicants; (iii) that, despite his qualifications, he was rejected; and (iv) that, after his rejection, the position remained open and the employer continued to seek applicants from persons of complainant's qualifications.... The burden then must shift to the employer to articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the employee's rejection.... [The complainant] must be given a full and fair opportunity to demonstrate by competent evidence that the presumptively valid reasons for his rejection were in fact a coverup for a racially discriminatory decision.
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v Green, 411 U.S. at 802, 805 (emphasis added). An employer rebuts the presumption of discrimination by producing evidence that the plaintiff was rejected, or someone else was preferred, for a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason. Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 254 (1981). The employer need not persuade the court that it was actually motivated by the proffered reasons. " he employer's burden is satisfied if he simply 'explains what he has done' or 'produc evidence of legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons.'" Board of Trustees of Keene State College v. Sweeney, 439 U.S. 24, 25 (1978) (quotations omitted).
In the present case, the University conceded that Cummings established a prima facie case on the basis of gender under the McDonnell Douglas model. The University made this tactical decision because it believed that "the prima facie burden has been so reduced" in sex discrimination cases that anyone can satisfy it, noting that, in truth, every plaintiff is a member of one gender or the other. University Post-Trial Brief at 8. Accordingly, the University chose to defend against Cummings' charge of discrimination by demonstrating that it had a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for not offering Cummings a tenure track position. The University had only to raise a genuine issue of fact about whether it discriminated against Cummings in order to prevail. See Board of Trustee of Keene State College. The fact that Cummings made out a pri
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Show All Case Laws Pennsylvania PEO
|