it ’ SaBouttyne … labor & Employment law Section Chairs : AmandaBiondolino – AmandaL . BiondolinoPLLC & RaquelJefferson – PhelpsDunbar
The Eleventh Circuit in Tynes v . Florida Department of Juvenile Justice reaffirmed that McDonnell Douglas — the framework cited in thousands of Title VII decisions — is merely an evidentiary framework , as opposed to a substantive standard of liability .
According to the Eleventh Circuit , McDonnell Douglas simply shifts the burden of production between the parties in order to to determine the underlying reason for an adverse employment action . A plaintiff who cannot satisfy this framework may still be able to evince discrimination through a “ convincing mosaic of circumstantial evidence .”
Title VII broadly prohibits workplace discrimination . When only circumstantial evidence is available , the Supreme Court has outlined a burden-shifting framework designed to draw out the necessary evidence . Under the McDonnell Douglas framework , a plaintiff can establish a prima facie case by showing :
• “ She belongs to a protected class .”
• “ She was subjected to an adverse employment action .”
• “ She was qualified to perform the job in question .”
• “ Her employer treated ‘ similarly situated ’ employees outside her class more favorably .” Over time ,
McDonnell Douglas became viewed as the exclusive framework for discrimination claims , with litigants relying solely on it when pursuing summary judgment . It was widely misunderstood that the requirements were standalone , case-dispositive elements .
The convincing mosaic standard arose as a response to the misconceptions . Despite its florid label , the evidentiary standard is simply a rearticulation of the summary judgment standard . A “ convincing mosaic ” of circum - stantial evidence is merely enough evidence for a factfinder to deduce intentional discrimination . “ No bells , no whistles — just reasonable inferences and triable facts .” thecourtintynesv . floridadepartmentof JuvenileJustice reaffirmedthat
Mcdonnelldouglas — theframeworkcitedin thousandsoftitlevii summaryjudgment decisions — ismerelyan evidentiaryframework , as opposedtoasubstantive standardofliability .
In Tynes , the plaintiff , a superintendent of the Broward Regional Juvenile Detention Center , was terminated for performancebased reasons . Tynes sued the Department in the Southern District of Florida alleging race and sex discrimination .
Ultimately , Tynes prevailed at trial . In response , the Department filed a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law or , alternatively , for a new trial , since Tynes neglected to proffer a comparator . The district court summarily denied the Department ’ s motion . On appeal , the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the ruling , holding that a plaintiff ’ s failure to produce a comparator is not dispositive .
According to the Eleventh Circuit , McDonnell Douglas merely functions as a procedural device , establishing an order of proof and production . It is an evidentiary
continuedonpage45 read and share the Lawyer magazine in digital format online now at hillsbar . com .
4 4 S E P - O C T 2 0 2 4 | H C B A L A W Y E R