Supreme Court Denies Review of Religious Bias Case

The U.S. Supreme Court plays a crucial role in shaping legal precedent, not only by deciding cases but also by declining to hear them. Recently, the court denied review in Hittle v. City of Stockton, a case involving a Christian fire chief who was fired after attending a church-sponsored leadership summit while on the clock. After the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the plaintiff’s religious discrimination claim, he sought Supreme Court review.

Legal scholars speculated whether the high court would use Hittle to re-examine the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework, a three-step process that courts use to assess discrimination and retaliation claims without direct evidence. Since McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973), this framework has guided workplace bias cases, but some appellate courts — such as the 10th and 11th Circuits — warn against applying it too rigidly, especially in early litigation during the motion for judgment stage. A motion for summary judgment is a key procedural tool that allows a judge to decide a case without a trial if they find that there’s no real disagreement about the important facts and the law clearly supports one side.

Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from the denial and was joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch. “I would have taken this opportunity to revisit McDonnell Douglas and decide whether its burden-shifting framework remains a workable and useful evidentiary tool,” Thomas wrote.

However, another case this session, Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, will allow the court to clarify how plaintiffs must plead discrimination claims — especially when they don’t neatly fit within the McDonnell Douglas framework.