Latest news with #RonaldHittle
Reuters
10-03-2025
- Reuters
US Supreme Court won't revisit key test for proving workplace discrimination
March 10 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday turned away a chance to revisit a test it created in the 1970s for determining whether plaintiffs have proven illegal employment discrimination, which two conservative justices said had "spawned enormous confusion." The court denied a petition by Ronald Hittle, opens new tab, the former fire chief in Stockton, California, for review of a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that said he had failed to prove that he was fired because of his religion. The 9th Circuit had applied the framework created by the Supreme Court in the 1973 case McDonnell Douglas v. Green for cases brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act that involve circumstantial rather than direct evidence of workplace discrimination. Under McDonnell Douglas, employers can offer up legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for an employment decision, shifting the burden to workers to show that those reasons were a pretext for discrimination. Courts are not required to use the McDonnell Douglas standard, but routinely do. And appeals courts have developed complicated bodies of legal precedent applying the test, while often disagreeing over how to do so. Six appeals courts, for example, have said that plaintiffs must disprove the reasons employers give for taking an employment action in order to prevail. But six other courts have said that is not necessary, as long as a plaintiff provides other evidence of discrimination. Hittle's petition had asked the Supreme Court to overrule McDonnell Douglas or, at least, to clarify how it applies. Lawyers for the city did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Aaron Streett, a lawyer for Hittle, said it was unfortunate that he was denied an opportunity to present his case to a jury. 'Chief Hittle served his community faithfully and bravely for nearly 25 years and wanted the opportunity to clear his good name," Streett said in an email. The Supreme Court in October denied a petition asking it to clarify how McDonnell Douglas applies at the summary judgment stage in so-called "mixed motive" cases where employers may have had both legitimate and discriminatory reasons to take action against a worker. Hittle claims that he was unlawfully fired for attending a Christian leadership conference while he was on duty. The city says it was improper for Hittle to attend the event on the city's time, and that he showed favoritism toward Christian coworkers. A federal judge granted summary judgment to the city in Hittle's 2022 lawsuit and the 9th Circuit last year affirmed, saying he had not shown that the city lacked a valid reason to terminate him. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented on Monday, opens new tab, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch. Thomas said the McDonnell Douglas test was merely a way to evaluate evidence in discrimination cases, but that many courts had long treated it as a substantive legal standard that a plaintiff must meet to ultimately prove a claim. "I am not aware of many precedents that have caused more confusion than this one," Thomas wrote. "By my best lights, a Title VII claim should survive summary judgment so long as the plaintiff establishes a genuine dispute of material fact about each element of his claim." The case is Hittle v. Stockton, California, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 24-427. For Hittle: Aaron Streett of Baker Botts
USA Today
10-03-2025
- Politics
- USA Today
A fire chief says he battled Christian discrimination. Supreme Court declines to take his case
A fire chief says he battled Christian discrimination. Supreme Court declines to take his case The Supreme Court declined to take the case, skirting a potential showdown over religion in the workplace during a year when the Court is testing the limits of religion in schools and tax exemptions. Show Caption Hide Caption SCOTUS ruling on 'reverse discrimination' civil rights case The Supreme Court justices questioned whether an extra hurdle for people of "majority backgrounds" is required to prove discrimination. WASHINGTON – Ronald Hittle was laid off as fire chief of Stockton, Calif., after facing allegations of misconduct, including an anonymous letter describing him as a 'corrupt, racist, lying, religious fanatic.' One of the issues that led to his termination: he had attended, with other managers, a church-sponsored summit for Christian leaders during work hours. Hittle tried to sue, arguing he was fired because of his Christian religion, but lower courts said he didn't have a strong enough case to go to trial. Hittle, though, contends the test the Supreme Court established more than 50 years ago for evaluating workplace discrimination allegations needs to be reexamined. The Supreme Court on Monday declined to take his case, skirting a potential showdown over religion in in the workplace during a year that the Court is testing the limits of religion in schools, and religion-related tax exemptions. Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch said they would have heard the appeal. Thomas wrote that Hittle had plenty evidence of discriminatory intent, and his case would have allowed the court to offer clear guidance on how to determine when workplace discrimination cases can move forward. More: Supreme Court appears likely to side with straight woman in `reverse discrimination' case Leadership training at a Christian summit Hittle was fired in 2011 after city investigator concluded Hittle lacked effectiveness and judgment, failed to report time off, engaged in favoritism and had attended with other managers a religious event while on the job, among other findings. The event was a church-sponsored summit for Christian leaders, which Hittle said he went to because the city directed him to get leadership training. Hittle argues his attendance at the Global Leadership Summit was the main reason he was fired and alleged the deputy city manager had accused him of being part of a 'Christian Coalition.' The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Hittle hadn't persuaded them that the city's stated reasons for firing him were a cover story. The court also said there wasn't enough evidence that his supervisors made discriminatory remarks. Hittle said the appeals court incorrectly required him to prove the city's stated justifications were bogus. 'When an employer acts for a discriminatory reason, it cannot automatically avoid liability just because lawful reasons also motivated it,' his attorneys told the court. More: 'Wolf in sheep's clothing'? How a USPS worker's fight over Sunday shifts could change your workplace. The city says Hittle is mischaracterizing the appeals court's decision and there's no reason to reconsider the court's landmark 1973 decision, McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, a 'settled touchstone of employment-discrimination law.' 'The City's reasons for terminating (Hittle) were well-documented and entirely appropriate for the Ninth Circuit to rely upon,' the city's lawyers told the court.
CNN
10-03-2025
- Politics
- CNN
Supreme Court declines to hear appeal from Christian fire chief who wanted to make it easier to sue for discrimination
The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear the appeal of a California fire chief who claimed he lost his job because of his Christian faith, a case that could have made it easier for Americans to win discrimination lawsuits against employers. Ronald Hittle, a 24-year veteran of the fire department in Stockton, California, said he was fired after attending a two-day Christian conference on city time. The city countered that Hittle had been instructed to attend a 'leadership' conference and told the high court in a brief that the chief had a long history of disobeying direction from superiors. Two conservative justices – Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch – dissented from the decision to deny the case. Represented in part by the First Liberty Institute, which has filed several successful religious claims at the Supreme Court in recent years, Hittle asked the Supreme Court to toss out a 1973 precedent, McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, that has for decades dictated how discrimination claims are reviewed in federal courts. Thomas wrote the precedent targeted by the case was 'producing troubling outcomes on the ground.' 'I am not aware of many precedents that have caused more confusion than this one,' he added. Discrimination claims are reviewed under a three-step process under the precedent. First, an employee alleging discrimination must show they belong to a class of people protected under the law — based on race or sex, for instance — and that the company appeared, at first impression, to have engaged in discrimination. In step two, the employer must then show that it had legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the actions it took against the plaintiff. In the third step, the burden shifts back to the employee to show that the company's stated reasons aren't simply a pretext for discrimination. Hittle asked the court to toss out McDonnell entirely or, alternatively, make it easier for employees to win under the third step. 'The court should take the opportunity to overrule this unworkable and egregiously wrong test without further delay,' Hittle's attorneys told the Supreme Court. The approach, they said, 'has rightly been criticized by judges and scholars alike.' A federal district court in California sided with the city and the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that decision. Hittle appealed to the Supreme Court in October.
Yahoo
10-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court declines to hear appeal from Christian fire chief who wanted to make it easier to sue for discrimination
The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear the appeal of a California fire chief who claimed he lost his job because of his Christian faith, a case that could have made it easier for Americans to win discrimination lawsuits against employers. Ronald Hittle, a 24-year veteran of the fire department in Stockton, California, said he was fired after attending a two-day Christian conference on city time. The city countered that Hittle had been instructed to attend a 'leadership' conference and told the high court in a brief that the chief had a long history of disobeying direction from superiors. Two conservative justices – Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch – dissented from the decision to deny the case. Represented in part by the First Liberty Institute, which has filed several successful religious claims at the Supreme Court in recent years, Hittle asked the Supreme Court to toss out a 1973 precedent, McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, that has for decades dictated how discrimination claims are reviewed in federal courts. Thomas wrote the precedent targeted by the case was 'producing troubling outcomes on the ground.' 'I am not aware of many precedents that have caused more confusion than this one,' he added. Discrimination claims are reviewed under a three-step process under the precedent. First, an employee alleging discrimination must show they belong to a class of people protected under the law — based on race or sex, for instance — and that the company appeared, at first impression, to have engaged in discrimination. In step two, the employer must then show that it had legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the actions it took against the plaintiff. In the third step, the burden shifts back to the employee to show that the company's stated reasons aren't simply a pretext for discrimination. Hittle asked the court to toss out McDonnell entirely or, alternatively, make it easier for employees to win under the third step. 'The court should take the opportunity to overrule this unworkable and egregiously wrong test without further delay,' Hittle's attorneys told the Supreme Court. The approach, they said, 'has rightly been criticized by judges and scholars alike.' A federal district court in California sided with the city and the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that decision. Hittle appealed to the Supreme Court in October.
CNN
10-03-2025
- Politics
- CNN
Supreme Court declines to hear appeal from Christian fire chief who wanted to make it easier to sue for discrimination
The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear the appeal of a California fire chief who claimed he lost his job because of his Christian faith, a case that could have made it easier for Americans to win discrimination lawsuits against employers. Ronald Hittle, a 24-year veteran of the fire department in Stockton, California, said he was fired after attending a two-day Christian conference on city time. The city countered that Hittle had been instructed to attend a 'leadership' conference and told the high court in a brief that the chief had a long history of disobeying direction from superiors. Two conservative justices – Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch – dissented from the decision to deny the case. Represented in part by the First Liberty Institute, which has filed several successful religious claims at the Supreme Court in recent years, Hittle asked the Supreme Court to toss out a 1973 precedent, McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, that has for decades dictated how discrimination claims are reviewed in federal courts. Thomas wrote the precedent targeted by the case was 'producing troubling outcomes on the ground.' 'I am not aware of many precedents that have caused more confusion than this one,' he added. Discrimination claims are reviewed under a three-step process under the precedent. First, an employee alleging discrimination must show they belong to a class of people protected under the law — based on race or sex, for instance — and that the company appeared, at first impression, to have engaged in discrimination. In step two, the employer must then show that it had legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the actions it took against the plaintiff. In the third step, the burden shifts back to the employee to show that the company's stated reasons aren't simply a pretext for discrimination. Hittle asked the court to toss out McDonnell entirely or, alternatively, make it easier for employees to win under the third step. 'The court should take the opportunity to overrule this unworkable and egregiously wrong test without further delay,' Hittle's attorneys told the Supreme Court. The approach, they said, 'has rightly been criticized by judges and scholars alike.' A federal district court in California sided with the city and the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that decision. Hittle appealed to the Supreme Court in October.
