HRM Article Review

Question

Summarize the salient points from attached article. Offer critique and issues and prepare a few questions to address.

Answer

The article provides information on a Supreme Court case: St. Mary’s Honor Center, et al., Petitioners v. Melvin Hicks. The case was argued on April 20, 1993 and decided on June 25 1993. The petitioner was St. Mary Honor Center while the respondent was Melvin Hicks. The petitioner employed the respondent as a correctional officer before promoting him to a shift commander. Later on, Hicks was demoted and soon afterwards discharged, prompting a lawsuit. In his suit paper, Hicks argued that the dismissal was motivated by racial discrimination in violation of title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In the Supreme Court case analyzed in this article, the petitioner sought to reverse a Court of Appeals ruling.

This case brings into perspective a lot of controversy regarding the circumstances under which an employee can rightfully claim to have been subjected to racial discrimination by way of demotion and/or dismissal. In the present case, the Supreme Court ruled that the burden of proof should never be shifted merely on the basis of a presumption. In the earlier decision that prompted the petition, the Court of Appeals had ruled that the law gave Hicks an entitlement to judgment on condition that he proved that all the proffered reasons given by the petitioner for his demotion and dismissal were pretextual. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals decision, and remanded the case for further proceedings as stipulated in its opinion.

In the reversal, the Supreme Court expressed the view that if Hicks got a compelling judgment, the fundamental principle underlying Rule 301 would be disregarded. Rule 301 states that a presumption of a discriminatory practice should never shift the burden of proof and persuasion. The court also opined that it lacked the authority to impose any liability upon the employer for alleged discriminatory practices unless there is proof to that effect provided by an appropriate fact-finder. It also dismissed the respondent’s concerns that such a decision would trigger dire practical consequences.

Unfortunately, the ruling puts the respondent (Hicks) at a disadvantage by requiring him to carry the burden of proof while allowing the petitioner to give unarticulated reasons for the dismissal. The Supreme Court ruling also seems unfair in light of Congress’ view that individuals have a right to jury trials in all Title VII cases. The court denied the respondent the right to jury trials simply because of the unavailability of detailed factual findings, yet it was not the respondent’s fault that they were unavailable. By overturning the Court of Appeals ruling, the Supreme Court appeared to be denying justice to the respondent simply on the basis of the difficulties inherent in the case. Although it is true that nobody can claim to be a “witness” to the petitioner’s mental processes, the undesirable consequences of this impossibility should not be borne by the respondent.

            As a corollary to the above issues, the following are the three arising questions:

1. Under which circumstances should the burden of proof of racial discrimination shift from the complainant (the dismissed employee) to the employer?
2. How can efforts to protect minority employees against discrimination using Title VII be fostered without creating a situation in which its interpretation is driven by concern for employers who are too ashamed to tell the truth in a courtroom at the expense of victims of discrimination like Hicks who lack direct evidence of an intent to discriminate?
3. Why can’t legislative changes be introduced to punish employers who lie in a court after facing allegations of discriminatory employment practices instead of seemingly rewarding them for giving unarticulated reasons for their actions?