McDonnell-Douglas v. Green

Green's claim exemplified the need for the framework: lacking direct evidence of discriminatory intent, he could still establish discrimination through a prima facie showing of his qualifications and rejection. McDonnell Douglas articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its refusal—Green's earlier participation in illegal protest activities—requiring Green to then prove the stated reason was pretextual and race was the true motive. The Court thus held that Title VII plaintiffs need not present direct proof of discrimination but instead can succeed through the structured burden-shifting analysis, establishing a framework that immediately became the standard for evaluating individual disparate treatment claims.