Asian Pacific American Law Journal

Asian Americans experience workplace discrimination at disproportionately high rates yet file formal employment discrimination claims at strikingly low levels. This disconnect reflects not only cultural and structural barriers to reporting, but also doctrinal limitations within Title VII jurisprudence that fail to capture the lived realities of Asian American professionals. This Note examines how courts’ reliance on the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework—particularly its comparator requirement in disparate treatment claims—systematically disadvantages Asian American plaintiffs whose experiences of discrimination often do not fit traditional comparative models.

By situating contemporary employment discrimination doctrine within the social and cultural context of Asian American workplace experiences, this Note argues that strict adherence to comparator-based proof creates an unjust evidentiary barrier that forecloses meaningful legal redress. It contends that the McDonnell Douglas framework should not function as a rigid prima facie standard and instead advocates for broader adoption of the “mosaic approach,” which permits courts to assess the full constellation of circumstantial evidence surrounding discriminatory conduct. Through doctrinal analysis, social context, and case-study application, this Note proposes a reorientation of Title VII analysis that better aligns with the statute’s purpose of ensuring equal employment opportunity and provides more effective protection for Asian American workers.