Recently, Justices Thomas and Gorsuch have questioned whether the McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green , 411 U.S. 792 (1973) framework remains the appropriate standard in certain employment related cases, arguing in Hittle v. City of Stockton, 145 S. St. 759, 763 (2025) (Thomas, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari) that the framework has instead spawned “widespread confusion” that “may distort a lower court’s analysis” in the face of ample evidence that “is more than likely sufficient [] to establish a genuine dispute of material fact as required by Rule 56.” The Eleventh Circuit weighed in with Ismael v. Roundtree , No. 25-10604 (11th Cir. Dec. 5, 2025) , and held that a federal judge in Georgia “improperly conflated” the pretext analysis of McDonnell Douglas , and the “convincing mosaic standard” when granting summary judgment. The Eleventh Circuit reaffirmed that even if a plaintiff cannot satisfy McDonnell Douglas framework, the district court must still apply traditional Rule 56 principles to determine whether a genuine issue of material fact exists before granting summary judgment. Historically, courts have relied on the McDonnell Douglas framework to analyze circumstantial

Read original article