438 U.S. 567, 577, 98 S. Ct. 2943, 57 L.Ed.2d 957 (1978)
Furnco Construction Corp. specializes in refractory installation in steel mills and does not maintain a permanent force of bricklayers.1 In August 1971 Furnco contracted with Interlake, Inc., to reline one of its blast furnaces.2 Joseph Dacies, who had been a job superintendent for Furnco since 1965, was placed in charge of the job and given the attendant hiring responsibilities.3 Dacies did not accept applications at the jobsite but hired only persons whom he knew to be experienced and competent or who had been recommended to him as similarly skilled.4
Respondents Samuels, Nemhard, and Smith, three black bricklayers, sought employment on the Interlake job by appearing at the jobsite gate.5 Samuels and Nemhard were never offered employment although they were fully qualified.6 Smith was employed only long after he initially applied, after he had worked for Dacies previously.7 Dacies hired his first four bricklayers, all white, on August 26 and 27 and September 7 and 8.8 He hired the first black bricklayer on September 9.9 Out of the total of 1,819 man-days worked on the Interlake job, 242 were worked by black bricklayers.10
After a bench trial the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois entered judgment for Furnco.11 The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the judgment of the District Court.12 The Supreme Court granted certiorari in 1977.13
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in its treatment of the evidence necessary to rebut a prima facie case under McDonnell Douglas?14
Once a Title VII plaintiff establishes a prima facie case under McDonnell Douglas by showing membership in a racial minority, application and qualification for a job the employer was seeking to fill, rejection despite qualifications, and that the employer continued seeking applicants of similar qualifications, the burden shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the rejection.15 The employer need not prove it pursued the hiring method that would allow consideration of the largest number of minority applicants.16
Yes. Respondents Samuels, Nemhard, and Smith established a prima facie case by proving they were black, fully qualified, appeared at the jobsite seeking employment on the Interlake job, were not hired or hired late, and Furnco continued hiring.17 The Court of Appeals erred by requiring Furnco to adopt a hiring procedure that would consider the qualifications of the largest number of minority applicants rather than merely articulating a legitimate reason.18 The established facts show that Dacies hired only persons known to be experienced or recommended because of the critical need for skilled firebricklayers to avoid losses, safety hazards, and reputational damage on the fixed-price, time-sensitive Interlake contract.19
This reason was legitimate and nondiscriminatory, and the District Court found no pretext.20
The Court of Appeals erred in its treatment of the rebuttal evidence.21
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Marshall agreed that respondents had made out a prima facie case under McDonnell Douglas.22 He concluded that the Court of Appeals failed to properly address whether Furnco had carried its burden of proving legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons.23 Marshall concurred that remand was necessary for that determination under the appropriate McDonnell Douglas standards.24
He also noted that other theories of liability, including disparate impact, should be addressed on remand.25 Marshall dissented from the majority's decision to foreclose further litigation on whether Furnco's hiring practices had a disparate impact under Griggs.26
Whether statistics showing a racially balanced work force are relevant to the determination of discriminatory motive?27
A racially balanced work force cannot immunize an employer from liability for specific acts of discrimination.28 Proof that the work force was racially balanced or contained a disproportionately high percentage of minority employees has probative value on the issue of intent when the prima facie showing is not the equivalent of an ultimate finding of discrimination.29
Yes. Although a racially balanced work force cannot immunize an employer from liability for specific acts of discrimination, the District Court was entitled to consider the racial mix of the work force when determining motivation.30 The facts establish that 13.3% of man-days were worked by black bricklayers compared to 5.7% minority in the labor force, which the District Court found relevant to showing no discriminatory motive.31
Statistics showing a racially balanced work force are relevant to the determination of discriminatory motive.32
Whether the Court of Appeals improperly substituted its own judgment regarding appropriate hiring procedures for that of the employer?33
Courts are generally less competent than employers to restructure business practices, and unless mandated to do so by Congress they should not attempt it.34 An employer need only articulate a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason and is not required to adopt the hiring procedure a court perceives as best.35
Yes. The Court of Appeals suggested a middle ground of taking written applications and then checking qualifications against known bricklayers.36 The established facts demonstrate that Furnco's policy of hiring only known or recommended skilled workers was justified by business necessity to ensure competent work on the blast furnace relining job.37 The District Court found this policy was not a pretext, and the Court of Appeals went too far in substituting its judgment.38
The Court of Appeals improperly substituted its own judgment regarding appropriate hiring procedures for that of the employer.39