In an employment discrimination lawsuit, who has the bigger burden of proof?

Speaking as someone who has worked on several EEO cases, the truth of the matter is it's the employer who really has the burden to prove that he/she did not discriminate. That's one of the failings of the EEO system and why so many people are critical of minority groups -- they call it "playing the race card" or "playing the gender card" because people in those groups know that they can allege discrimination for no other reason than they're pissed off about not getting a job or promotion or having adverse action taken against them, and now it's the employer who has to do all the legwork to prove that it had nothing to do with race or gender. The really sad thing about the whole thing is the people who are critical of minority groups have a legitimate gripe. From 1998 to 2000 I assisted with 25 EEO cases in San Antonio, Texas, and in every single case the allegations of discrimination were ruled to be "totally unfounded."

If that was a real case in a court of law, it would be thrown out. The defendant is always presumed innocent until proven guilty. The testimony of the accuser would not be enough to convict them, especially if there was evidence which suggested reasonable doubt. Pictures of the person at an ATM and an ATM receipt would suggest reasonable doubt. No jury would convict under those circumstances. If you accused me of stealing $100 from you, you would have to prove that you had the $100 in the first place. You would also have to prove that the $100 in my pocket actually had belonged to you (forensics should be able to match the smudges on the bills to your fingerprints if the money had belonged to you). You would have to point out exactly where you were and where I was when the money was taken. I would have to be placed at the scene. Et cetera, et cetera. Now, the way the burden of proof has ALWAYS worked is like this: The burden of proof falls on the person making the absolute claim, no matter what the claim is. Period. You say that there absolutely is no God, prove it. If I said there absolutely is a God, it would be up to me to prove it. That is the way it is. Don't like it? Don't make absolute claims, otherwise you can be called upon to prove it.

It is the Plaintiff that will need to gather evidence for the discrimination. It will be up to the Defendants to prove they DID NOT discriminate. Hence, arguments are heard and trial ensues.

Yes the jury will have the final say and it depends on the state you live in as to how the ruling laws should be interrupted based on the evidence. Really speak with your attorney about it. He/she should know if he/she is a good trial attorney.

Take Care

The Plaintiff generally has the greatest burden.

They usually have to show that the employer actively engaged or tolerated some type of discrimination. Twenty years ago it would have easy to prove. Today most larger employer are extremely sensitive to any type of discrimination charge.

It would appear to very unusual for a Plaintiff to have a slam dunk case today.

No matter who's side the burden of proof lies, it is alwasy easier for the employer in employment discrimination lawsuits. I sued a few years ago in Hawaii and my case was dismissed. In mine in particular all the employer had to say was that the 18 year old old out highschool (and his neice) was more qualified in his opinion for a mid level security manager position that I was at 29 with 10 years prior experience. Racist fricken Hawaiians anyway...lol

You as the plaintiff must prove your case. You must prove a burden of proof without a doubt. They can't charge someone with something when there's no proof. You have constitutional rights and one of them is....Your innocent until proven guilty. With that being said, you must prove the defendant guilty. If not your case will be dismissed.

good question it probally depends like in that move north country