[1] Ms Burdine, a female employee, alleged that the defendant's failure to promote her and subsequent decision to terminate her were premised on illegal gender discrimination.

[2] The Court of Appeals held that the defendant carried the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he had legitimate reasons for the employment decision, and that others promoted and hired were better qualified than the plaintiff.

[9] A defendant could sustain his or her duty to produce evidence simply by articulating a nondiscriminatory justification for the employment decision.

[10] The plaintiff's burden, therefore, is magnified because he will have to proffer convincing evidence analyzing the employer's intent.

[11] Consequently, this higher evidentiary burden has created an increased incentive for plaintiffs to allege discrimination under the disparate impact theory where the employer's intent is not at issue.