An evidentiary framework used to analyze whether a plaintiff's disparate treatment discrimination claims should survive a defendant-employer's motion for summary judgment. The McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting analysis is applied when a plaintiff lacks direct evidence of discrimination. It takes its name from the US Supreme Court decision that created the framework, McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). Traditional McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting operates as follows:

Although the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework was originally created for claims alleging discriminatory failure to hire on the basis of race under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, courts have applied the analysis to various other employment claims under Title VII (for example, failure to promote, retaliation and termination). It has also been used to analyze claims of discrimination under several other federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination (for example, the Americans with Disabilities Act and Age Discrimination in Employment Act). For more information, see Practice Notes, Discrimination: Overview.

The McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework is also applied to claims that fall outside the traditional employment law context. In the employee benefits context, for example, the federal courts apply the McDonnell Douglas framework regarding individuals' claims under Section 510 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) (29 U.S.C. § 1140)). For more information, see Practice Note, ERISA Litigation: Interference with Protected Rights (ERISA Section 510): Proving Specific Intent with Circumstantial Evidence (McDonnell Douglas Framework).

For sample language for use in a summary judgment brief, see Standard Clauses, McDonnell Douglas Standard Language for Summary Judgment Brief.