Czech Yearbook Vol. 4 2013

THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN EUROPEAN ANTIǧDISCRIMINATION LAW

2. The establishment of the rule on reversal of the burden

of proof in the United States

The US Supreme Court ruling of 1973 in the case of

McDonnell Douglas

Corporation v. Green

has become an important milestone in anti-discrimination law.

When the African-American human rights activist Percy Green applied for the position

of a mechanic, which had been advertised by a company producing aircrafts, his

application was refused by the employer. Before the competent authorities (e.g. before

the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission – EEOC) he maintained that he

had become a victim of racial discrimination. He invoked the provisions of Title VII

of the Civil Rights Act, which, since 1964, prohibits discrimination in the field of

employment based on race, colour, religion, gender and national origin.

In the second part of its benchmark judgment, the Supreme Court concluded

that the key issue of the case is the allocation of proof in a private, non-class action

challenging employment discrimination. Before the court the employer refused the

allegation that the applicant had been rejected on racial grounds, and he stated as

an objective reason for the rejection the applicant’s alleged involvement in illegal

activities. The Supreme Court held that it is primarily for the complainant to present

prima facie

evidence concerning his membership in a minority, his qualifications,

and the fact that the employer continued to advertise the job offer after the rejection

of a qualified candidate. If the complainant manages to produce the required

prima

facie

evidence, it is for the defendant to demonstrate legitimate and objective reason

why he rejected the applicant. Following the Supreme Court ruling these criteria

have been strictly applied in cases of alleged discrimination.

3. Shifting the burden of proof in EU law

At the end of the 1980s the ECJ had to solve the issue of burden of proof in

a Danish case concerning alleged employment discrimination. In the

Danfoss

case

the Court addressed the problem of discrimination based on sex. The question

arose before the domestic court whether and to which extent statistics documenting

differences in wages for male and female employees may be considered as sufficient

evidence of prohibited discrimination. In this situation the Danish court asked the

ECJ specifically whether the burden of proof lies with the employee or the employer

and also inquired about the importance of statistical evidence. It had already been

established before the Danish court that male and female employees did the same

work of equal value and that there had been a differentiation in pay. But who did

the burden of proving that this differentiation was attributable to considerations

determined by sex lie with?

The ECJ dealt with this issue in a profound way. In its preliminary ruling,

the Court found, first, that the remuneration system was, in that particular case,

411 U.S. 792 (1973).

Case 109/88, Judgment of 17 October 1989.