Employment Litigation · Primary-source case analysis

McDonnell Douglas: The Indirect-Proof Framework for Intentional Discrimination

By Aneeta Mishra and Timothy Chan

Published April 30, 2026

McDonnell Douglas organizes circumstantial proof in individual disparate-treatment cases without shifting the ultimate burden of persuasion from the plaintiff.

A former employee challenged refusal to rehire

Percy Green alleged that McDonnell Douglas refused to rehire him because of race and civil-rights activity. The company cited his participation in disruptive protests.

A prima facie showing raises an inference

The plaintiff may show protected status, qualification, rejection, and continued search or favorable treatment of comparable applicants. The precise formulation varies with the factual setting.

The employer must articulate a legitimate reason

The burden is one of production, not persuasion. If the employer identifies a lawful explanation, the plaintiff receives a fair opportunity to show it was a pretext for prohibited discrimination.

Disposition

The Court remanded for trial under the announced framework and required access to relevant comparative hiring evidence. It did not decide the ultimate motive.

Key takeaways

• Adapt the prima facie elements to the decision at issue.
• Require a clear and supported employer explanation.
• Use comparator and inconsistency evidence to test pretext.
• Remember the ultimate persuasion burden remains with the plaintiff.