No new sheriff in town: Court rejects novel application of McDonnell Douglas test

A mediocre sheriff with a history of performance warnings wasn’t promoted and tried to get that reversed by a California trial court. When that didn’t work, he went to the court of appeal and asked for his case to be judged by a novel standard.

What is the McDonnell Douglas test?

Recognizing that most people don’t come out and admit a discriminatory intent, how do you prove an employment discrimination claim by circumstantial evidence? Both federal and California law have developed the McDonnell Douglas test, by which the burden of presenting evidence shifts.

First, the employee must present some proof calling into question the employment decision—for example, showing they are a qualified Black applicant who was rejected for a job, and a lesser qualified White applicant was chosen instead. Next, the employer has to present some evidence of a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the action. If that happens, the employee has the final burden of proving the employer’s explanation is false.

Importantly, the McDonnell Douglas test doesn’t change the burden of proof, but rather the order in which claims and defenses are presented. Nor is it applicable in every situation. For example, other forms of proof are included in whistleblower statutes and are applicable to mixed-motive cases (where an action is based on both a lawful and an unlawful reason). But for public policy reasons, to allow courts to determine and remedy discrimination, the McDonnell Douglas test is widely used where there is no direct evidence of job discrimination.

Mediocre sheriff