Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. /// The Shifting Legal Landscape Concerning Employment Discrimination Cases

Although our law firm does not handle employment discrimination cases, we frequently refer such matters to excellent attorneys. Recently, however, I came across a particularly insightful and well-written Florida Bar Journal (volume 99, No. 4 July/August 2025) article by Attorney James Poindexter, which inspired me to write this blog.

Employment discrimination cases are primarily grounded in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Like all statutory law, Title VII has been shaped and refined through judicial interpretation, with courts across the country—including the United States Supreme Court—defining its scope and application.

For more than fifty years, one of the most influential cases in employment discrimination law has been McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), decided by the United States Supreme Court. The decision established a framework for plaintiffs to prove discrimination in cases where direct evidence of discriminatory intent is absent.

Unfortunately, although once regarded as a lifeline for plaintiffs, the case has gradually evolved into more of an obstacle to proving even meritorious claims, ossifying into a rigid procedural doctrine. This shift stems from a misunderstanding of the framework’s purpose. Rather than treating it as one of several possible methods of proof, many courts and practitioners have mistakenly applied it as the exclusive route. Encouragingly, recent decisions have begun to clarify that the McDonnell Douglas framework is not the only path available.

These decisions reaffirm that the ultimate issue is ‘whether the defendant intentionally discriminated against the plaintiff,’ United States Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 715 (1983), rather than whether the three-part framework of McDonnell Douglas has been mechanically satisfied. In effect, courts have recognized that, for some, the McDonnell Douglas test has come to overshadow—and at times supplant—the Civil Rights Act itself as the governing law.

A significant shift in how courts should view the McDonnell Douglas framework came in Tynes v. Florida Department of Juvenile Justice, 88 F.4th 939 (11th Cir. 2023). In Tynes, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, but the employer sought to overturn it by arguing that the plaintiff had failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under McDonnell Douglas.

The Tynes court clarified that while McDonnell Douglas remains a valid method of proving discrimination, it is not the exclusive one. Most importantly, the court emphasized that the central question is whether unlawful discrimination occurred—not whether the plaintiff successfully cleared the procedural hurdles outlined in McDonnell Douglas.

Tynes’ message is that courts should analyze the evidence as a mosaic, considering all the pieces together to determine if a jury could reasonably conclude that unlawful discrimination occurred. This holistic approach aligns with the text of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

Getting the Supreme Court to adopt the “mosaic” approach may be challenging. In Hittle v. City of Stockton, California, 145 S. Ct. 759 (2025), the Court denied a petition for certiorari, thereby declining to review a Ninth Circuit opinion that required the plaintiff to satisfy the traditional McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework. Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Gorsuch, dissented from the denial, arguing that the Court should have used the case to reconsider the McDonnell Douglas framework.

Employment discrimination cases can be exceedingly difficult for plaintiffs, as federal courts are often inclined to grant summary judgment motions, dismissing the claims before they can be heard by a jury. However, the Tynes decision may signal a softening of this approach. By emphasizing the “mosaic” of evidence, the court encourages judges to look beyond the rigid, step-by-step framework of McDonnell Douglas and instead consider the totality of the circumstances, which may make it more difficult for defendants to obtain summary judgment.

*********************************************************

Contact us toll free at 866-785-GALE or by email (jgale@jeffgalelaw.com) for a free, confidential consultation to learn your legal rights.

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. is a South Florida based law firm committed to the judicial system and to representing and obtaining justice for individuals – the poor, the injured, the forgotten, the voiceless, the defenseless and the damned, and to protecting the rights of such people from corporate and government oppression. We do not represent government, corporations or large business interests.

While prompt resolution of your legal matter is our goal, our approach is fundamentally different. Our clients are “people” and not “cases” or “files.” We take the time to build a relationship with our clients, realizing that only through meaningful interaction can we best serve their needs. In this manner, we have been able to best help those requiring legal representation.