• Majority Opinion
  
• Majority Opinion Continued
  
• Justice White - Concurring the Opinion
  
• Justice O'Connor - Concurring the Opinion
  
• The Dissenting Opinion
  

[Footnote 1] Before the time for reconsideration came, two of the partners in Hopkins' office withdrew their support for her, and the office informed her that she would not be reconsidered for partnership. Hopkins then resigned. Price Waterhouse does not challenge the Court of Appeals' conclusion that the refusal to repropose her for partnership amounted to a constructive discharge. That court remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings to determine appropriate relief, and those proceedings have been stayed pending our decision. Brief for Petitioner 15, n. 3. We are concerned today only with Price Waterhouse's decision to place Hopkins' candidacy on hold. Decisions pertaining to advancement to partnership are, of course, subject to challenge under Title VII. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69 (1984).

[Footnote 2] This question has, to say the least, left the Circuits in disarray. The Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Seventh Circuits require a plaintiff challenging an adverse employment decision to show that, but for her gender (or race or religion or national origin), the decision would have been in her favor. See, e. g., Bellissimo v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 764 F.2d 175, 179 (CA3 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1035(1986); Ross v. Communications Satellite Corp., 759 F.2d 355, 365-366 (CA4 1985); Peters v. Shreveport, 818 F.2d 1148, 1161 (CA5 1987); McQuillen v. Wisconsin Education Assn. Council, 830 F.2d 659, 664-665 (CA7 1987). The First, Second, Sixth, and Eleventh Circuits, on the other hand, hold that once the plaintiff has shown that a discriminatory motive was a "substantial" or "motivating" factor in an employment decision, the employer may avoid a finding of liability only by proving that it would have made the same decision even in the absence of discrimination. These courts have either specified that the employer must prove its case by a preponderance of the evidence or have not mentioned the proper standard of proof. See, e. g., Fields v. Clark University, 817 F.2d 931, 936-937 (CA1 1987) ("motivating factor"); Berl v. Westchester County, 849 F.2d 712, 714-715 (CA2 1988) ("substantial part"); Terbovitz v. Fiscal Court of Adair County, Ky., 825 F.2d 111, 115 (CA6 1987) ("motivating factor"); Bell v. Birmingham Linen Service, 715 F.2d 1552, 1557 (CA11 1983). The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, as shown in this case, follows the same rule except that it requires that the employer's proof be clear and convincing rather than merely preponderant. 263 U.S. App. D.C. 321, 333-334, 825 F.2d 458, 470-471 (1987); see also Toney v. Block, 227 U.S. App. D.C. 273, 275, 705 F.2d 1364, 1366 (1983) (Scalia, J.) (it would be "destructive of the purposes of [Title VII] to require the plaintiff to establish . . . the difficult hypothetical proposition that, had there been no discrimination, the employment decision would have been made in his favor"). The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit also requires clear and convincing proof, but it goes further by holding that a Title VII violation is made out as soon as the plaintiff shows that an impermissible motivation played a part in an employment [490 U.S. 228, 239] decision - at which point the employer may avoid reinstatement and an award of backpay by proving that it would have made the same decision in the absence of the unlawful motive. See, e. g. Fadhl v. City and County of San Francisco, 741 F.2d 1163, 1165-1166 (1984) (Kennedy, J.) ("significant factor"). Last, the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit draws the same distinction as the Ninth between the liability and remedial phases of Title VII litigation, but requires only a preponderance of the evidence from the employer. See, e. g., Bibbs v. Block, 778 F.2d 1318, 1320-1324 (1985) (en banc) ("discernible factor").

[Footnote 3] We disregard, for purposes of this discussion, the special context of affirmative action.

[Footnote 4] Congress specifically declined to require that an employment decision have been "for cause" in order to escape an affirmative penalty (such as reinstatement or backpay) from a court. As introduced in the House, the bill that became Title VII forbade such affirmative relief if an "individual was . . . refused employment or advancement, or was suspended or discharged for cause." H. R. Rep. No. 7152, 88th Cong., 1st Sess., 77 (1963) (emphasis added). The phrase "for cause" eventually was deleted in favor of the phrase "for any reason other than" one of the enumerated characteristics. See 110 Cong. Rec. 2567-2571 (1964). Representative Celler explained that this substitution "specif[ied] cause"; in his view, a court "cannot find any violation of the act which is based on facts other . . . than discrimination on the grounds of race, color, religion, or national origin." Id., at 2567.

[Footnote 5] In this Court, Hopkins for the first time argues that Price Waterhouse violated 703(a)(2) when it subjected her to a biased decisionmaking process that "tended to deprive" a woman of partnership on the basis of her sex. Since Hopkins did not make this argument below, we do not address it.

[Footnote 6] We made passing reference to a similar question in McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transportation Co., 427 U.S. 273, 282, n. 10 (1976), where we stated that when a Title VII plaintiff seeks to show that an employer's explanation for a challenged employment decision is pretextual, "no more is required to be shown than that race was a `but for' cause." This passage, however, does not suggest that the plaintiff must show but-for cause; it indicates only that if she does so, she prevails. More important, McDonald dealt with the question whether the employer's stated reason for its decision was the reason for its action; unlike the case before us today, therefore, McDonald did not involve mixed motives. This difference is decisive in distinguishing this case from those involving "pretext." See infra, at 247, n. 12.

[Footnote 7] Congress specifically rejected an amendment that would have placed the word "solely" in front of the words "because of." 110 Cong. Rec. 2728, 13837 (1964).

[Footnote 8] We have in the past acknowledged the authoritativeness of this interpretive memorandum, written by the two bipartisan "captains" of Title VII. See, e. g., Firefighters v. Stotts, 467 U.S. 561, 581, n. 14 (1984).

[Footnote 9] Many of the legislators' statements, such as the memorandum quoted in text, focused specifically on race rather than on gender or religion or national origin. We do not, however, limit their statements to the context of [490 U.S. 228, 244] race, but instead we take them as general statements on the meaning of Title VII. The somewhat bizarre path by which "sex" came to be included as a forbidden criterion for employment - it was included in an attempt to defeat the bill, see C. & B. Whalen, The Longest Debate: A Legislative History of the 1964 Civil Rights Act 115-117 (1985) - does not persuade us that the legislators' statements pertaining to race are irrelevant to cases alleging gender discrimination. The amendment that added "sex" as one of the forbidden criteria for employment was passed, of course, and the statute on its face treats each of the enumerated categories exactly the same. By the same token, our specific references to gender throughout this opinion, and the principles we announce, apply with equal force to discrimination based on race, religion, or national origin.

[Footnote 10] Hopkins argues that once she made this showing, she was entitled to a finding that Price Waterhouse had discriminated against her on the basis of sex; as a consequence, she says, the partnership's proof could only limit the relief she received. She relies on Title VII's 706(g), which permits a court to award affirmative relief when it finds that an employer "has intentionally engaged in or is intentionally engaging in an unlawful employment practice," and yet forbids a court to order reinstatement of, or backpay to, "an individual . . . if such individual was refused . . . employment or advancement [490 U.S. 228, 245] or was suspended or discharged for any reason other than discrimination on account of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(g) (emphasis added). We do not take this provision to mean that a court inevitably can find a violation of the statute without having considered whether the employment decision would have been the same absent the impermissible motive. That would be to interpret 706(g) - a provision defining remedies - to influence the substantive commands of the statute. We think that this provision merely limits courts' authority to award affirmative relief in those circumstances in which a violation of the statute is not dependent upon the effect of the employer's discriminatory practices on a particular employee, as in pattern-or-practice suits and class actions. "The crucial difference between an individual's claim of discrimination and a class action alleging a general pattern or practice of discrimination is manifest. The inquiry regarding an individual's claim is the reason for a particular employment decision, while `at the liability stage of a pattern-or-practice trial the focus often will not be on individual hiring decisions, but on a pattern of discriminatory decisionmaking.'" Cooper v. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, 467 U.S. 867, 876 (1984), quoting Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324, 360, n. 46 (1977). Without explicitly mentioning this portion of 706(g), we have in the past held that Title VII does not authorize affirmative relief for individuals as to whom, the employer shows, the existence of systemic discrimination had no effect. See Franks v. Bowman Transportation Co., 424 U.S. 747, 772 (1976); Teamsters v. United States, supra, at 367-371; East Texas Motor Freight System, Inc. v. Rodriguez, 431 U.S. 395, 404, n. 9 (1977). These decisions suggest that the proper focus of 706(g) is on claims of systemic discrimination, not on charges of individual discrimination. Cf. NLRB v. Transportation Management Corp., 462 U.S. 393 (1983) (upholding the National Labor Relations Board's identical interpretation of 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 160(c), which contains language almost identical to 706(g)).

[Footnote 11] Given that both the plaintiff and defendant bear a burden of proof in cases such as this one, it is surprising that the dissent insists that our approach requires the employer to bear "the ultimate burden of proof." Post, at 288. It is, moreover, perfectly consistent to say both that gender was a factor in a particular decision when it was made and that, when the situation is viewed hypothetically and after the fact, the same decision would have been made even in the absence of discrimination. Thus, we do not see the "internal inconsistency" in our opinion that the dissent perceives. See post, at 285-286. Finally, where liability is imposed because an employer is unable to prove that it would have made the same decision even if it had not discriminated, this is not an imposition of liability "where sex made no difference to the outcome." Post, at 285. In our adversary system, where a party has the burden of proving a particular assertion and where that party is unable to meet its burden, we assume that that assertion is inaccurate. Thus, where an employer is unable to prove its claim that it would have made the same decision in the absence of discrimination, we are entitled to conclude that gender did make a difference to the outcome.

[Footnote 12] Nothing in this opinion should be taken to suggest that a case must be correctly labeled as either a "pretext" case or a "mixed-motives" case from the beginning in the District Court; indeed, we expect that plaintiffs often will allege, in the alternative, that their cases are both. Discovery often will be necessary before the plaintiff can know whether both legitimate and illegitimate considerations played a part in the decision against her. At some point in the proceedings, of course, the District Court must decide whether a particular case involves mixed motives. If the plaintiff fails to satisfy the factfinder that it is more likely than not that a forbidden characteristic played a part in the employment decision, then she may prevail only if she proves, following Burdine, that the employer's stated reason for its decision is pretextual. The dissent need not worry that this evidentiary scheme, if used during a jury trial, will be so impossibly confused and complex as it imagines. See, e. g., post, at 292. Juries long have decided cases in which defendants raised affirmative defenses. The dissent fails, moreover, to explain why the evidentiary scheme that we endorsed over 10 years ago in Mt. Healthy City Bd. of Ed. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (1977), has not proved unworkable in that context but would be hopelessly complicated in a case brought under federal antidiscrimination statutes.

[Footnote 13] After comparing this description of the plaintiff's proof to that offered by JUSTICE O'CONNOR's opinion concurring in the judgment, post, at 276-277, we do not understand why the concurrence suggests that they are meaningfully different from each other, see post, at 275, 277-279. Nor do we see how the inquiry that we have described is "hypothetical," see post, at 283, n. 1. It seeks to determine the content of the entire set of reasons for a decision, rather than shaving off one reason in an attempt to determine what the decision would have been in the absence of that consideration. The inquiry that we describe thus strikes us as a distinctly non-hypothetical one.

[Footnote 14] JUSTICE WHITE's suggestion, post, at 261, that the employer's own testimony as to the probable decision in the absence of discrimination is due special credence where the court has, contrary to the employer's testimony, found that an illegitimate factor played a part in the decision, is baffling.

[Footnote 15] We reject the claim, advanced by Price Waterhouse here and by the dissenting judge below, that the District Court clearly erred in finding that Beyer was "responsible for telling [Hopkins] what problems the Policy Board had identified with her candidacy." 618 F. Supp., at 1117. This conclusion was reasonable in light of the testimony at trial of a member of both the Policy Board and the Admissions Committee, who stated that he had "no doubt" that Beyer would discuss with Hopkins the reasons for placing her candidacy on hold and that Beyer "knew exactly where the problems were" regarding Hopkins. Tr. 316.

[Footnote 16] We do not understand the dissenters' dissatisfaction with the District Judge's statements regarding the failure of Price Waterhouse to "sensitize" partners to the dangers of sexism. Post, at 294. Made in the context [490 U.S. 228, 257] of determining that Price Waterhouse had not disclaimed reliance on sex-based evaluations, and following the judge's description of the firm's history of condoning such evaluations, the judge's remarks seem to us justified.