St. Mary's Honor Center V. Hicks Case Study

St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks (1993)

According to the EEOC (2014), the Civil Rights Act of 1964 revision spoke directly to damages in cases of intentional discrimination in employment. Prior to this revision and since this revision, there have been and are still employment discrimination cases going before the courts. This Act forbids employment discrimination based on race, sex, religion, national origin, physical disability, and age in any aspect of the employment process. Anyone who feels they have been discriminated against should file a suit against should file a claim with the Equal Opportunity Commission, who is charged with enforcing anti-discrimination cases. Before this Act passed an employers could not hire someone due to the

Hicks who worked for a correctional institution. Mr. Hicks felt he was being discriminated against at his work due to his race as an African American. The end result was Mr. Hicks feels was terminated from his job and he feels it was ultimately due to discrimination against his race. In examining the main points of the case there is context to what happened to caused Mr. Hicks to file suit. In 1978, Mr. Hicks was hired by St. Mary’s Honor Center as a Correctional Officer. In 1980, Mr. Hicks was promoted to one of six shift Commander positions at St. Mary’s. Mr. Hicks had a satisfactory work performance according to his supervisors. According to Open Jurist (2014), in 1983, MDCHR began investigating St. Mary’s Honor Center because of complaints about poor maintenance, inadequate security, and other concerns at the facility. In January 1984, as a result of the investigation, the supervisory structure of St. Mary’s was reorganized and Mr. Hick’s immediate supervisor was replaced, as was the superintendent of the facility. During this change Mr. Hicks maintained his position as Supervisor. John Powell, who was Mr. Hicks immediate Supervisor, became the new Chief of Custody and Steve Long became the new Superintendent. This is when things began to change for Mr. Hicks because prior to these position changes Mr. Hicks enjoyed a satisfactory employment record. According to Cornell University (2014), shortly after this change his

Next the employer has to prove with evidence the discrimination was legitimate and had nothing to do with discrimination. Finally, the burden of proof comes back on the employee to demonstrate the reason the employer gave is not valid and was just a pretext for discrimination. In the case of St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Mr. Hicks, when this case reached the Supreme Court, it relied on two prior cases in making its decision: McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green and Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green case involved an African American man who worked as a mechanic for McDonnell Douglas Corporation. He worked there from 1956 until he was laid off in 1964. The layoff was part of reduction in McDonnell Douglas workforce. Mr. Green felt his layoff was racially motivated and furthermore felt the company’s hiring practice were racially motivated too. Mr. Green was a member of Congress of Racial Equality (CRE) and participated in a “stall-in” to block access to people trying to enter the company in questions site. This fact was also part of the employer’s