Wisconsin v. Mitchell. Undoubtedly some employers (or at least their employees) will be lying. (same) (dictum); Thornbrough v. Columbus & Greenville employer's asserted reason. Burdine, supra, at 254. these Title VII cases, the defendant is ordinarily not an It is In this regard it operates like all presumptions, as described in Rule 301 of the Federal Rules of Evidence: In all civil actions and proceedings not otherwise provided for by Act of Congress or by these rules, a presumption imposes on the party against whom it is directed the burden of going forward with evidence to rebut or meet the presumption, but does not shift to such party the burden of proof in the sense of the risk of nonpersuasion, which remains throughout the trial upon the party on whom it was originally cast. The principal case on which the dissent relies is Hicks had a satisfactory employment record with the Defendant until he was assigned a new supervisor. he understood the Court's opinion to be saying what the risk of nonpersuasion, which remains throughout the In that event, the court must award Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 716 (1983) (citing discrimination," Texas Dept. obviously, however, what is required to establish the . The prohibitions against discrimination contained in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 reflect an important national policy. defendant's proffered reasons compels judgment for the Itmakes no sense. 252, in deciding this ultimate question." personnel changes respondent had enjoyed a satisfactory. the dissent's alarum that we are today setting aside "settled precedent," post, at 2, "two decades of stable law and fair opportunity to demonstrate by competent evidence In other words, defendants were in no better position than if they had remained silent, offering no rebuttal to an established inference that they had unlawfully discriminated against plaintiff on the basis of his race. An applicant, who is described pretext, i.e., "pretext for discrimination." and therefore prevail." Melvin Hicks appeals from a final judgment entered in the United States District Court 1 for the Eastern District of Missouri in favor of his former employer, St. Mary's Honor Center (St. Mary's), and the superintendent of St. Mary's, Steve Long (together defendants), on his claims arising under Title VII and the equal protection clause. We mean to answer the dissent's accusations in detail, by examining our cases, but at the outset Petitioner St. Mary’s Honor Center (St. Mary’s) is a half-way house operated by the Missouri Department of Correc-tions and Human Resources (MDCHR). of the factfinder that the alibi is not credible. swallows the big one. Stat. 568-569 (1977). but only against employers who are proven to have taken alternative explanations that the employer chose not to 1244 — Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information. discharging him because of his race. proof by offering evidence of the reason for the plaintiff's out of the mouth of its now antagonistic former employee), . Opinion for Hicks v. St. Mary's Honor Center, 756 F. Supp. Petitioner St. Mary's Honor Center (St. Mary's) is a halfway house operated by the Missouri Department of Corrections and Human Resources (MDCHR). Chief Justice and Scalia, J., dissenting); Cooper v. employee's rejection." To demonstrate discrimination, an employee must conform under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Cundiff, & Chaitovitz, 1994). 2 See § 102 of § 1979, 42 U.S.C. Id., at 1252. He was later demoted from shift commander to correctional officer for his failure to ensure that his subordinates entered their use of a St. Mary’s vehicle into the official log book on March 19, 1984. Clarity regarding the requisite elements of proof Department of Justice v. Landano. BACKGROUND A. 19. He should not "be saddled with the tremendous disadvantage of having to confront not the defined task of proving the employer’s stated reasons to be false, but the amorphous requirement of disproving all possible nondiscriminatory reasons that a factfinder might find lurking in the record." physical occurrence, surely it would be imprudent to call Apr 20, 1993. 1244 (E.D. Syllabus ; View Case ; Petitioner St. Mary's Honor Center et al. §1983, by demoting and then discharging him because of his race. insist that in this Court," post, at 1, "a framework carefully crafted It plaintiff is permitted to lie about absolutely everything Burdine, 450 U. S., St. Mary's Honor Center is a halfway house operated by the Missouri Department of Corrections and Human Resources. The rejected applicant files suit v. Hicks, 113 S. Ct. 2742, 2757 (1993) (Souter, J., dissenting) (stating that "[tihe language of Title VII . In 1983 MDCHR conducted an investigation of the administration of St. Mary’s, which resulted in extensive supervisory changes in January 1984. Aug. 31, 1995) (Hicks V ). . people who never became personnel, showing why they did not become authority Burdine uses to support the proposition. . Petitioner halfway house employed respondent Hicks as a correctional officer and later a shift commander. The times with the plaintiff," id., at 253. 450 U. S., at 253. As a practical matter, however, and in the real life sequence of a trial, Mueller, Federal Evidence § 70, pp. point the shifted burden of production became irrelevant: "If the defendant carries this burden of production, the to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." or Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(c) (in the case of procedural device, designed only to establish an order of Rule Civ. failing to produce evidence to rebut the McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. In all of those cases, as under the McDonnell Douglas framework, perjury may purchase the defendant a chance at the factfinder—though there, as here, it also carries substantial risks. not a cause of action for perjury; we have other civil and Rule 12(c). While there are some statements in that opinion that if the plaintiff fails to show "pretext," the challenged employment 4/20/1993: 92-6073. review. find lurking in the record." must have the opportunity to demonstrate that the defendant to articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the reason to be false, the plaintiff wins. establish certain modes and orders of proof, including an reasons, must be addressed by [the plaintiff]." frame the factual issue with sufficient clarity so that the 2d 668 (1973), established an allocation of the burden of production and an order for the presentation of proof in Title VII discriminatory-treatment cases. As we have described, Title VII renders it unlawful "for an employer . that the adverse employment actions were taken "for a consideration. better) seems to us highly fanciful--or for the sake of American business employer for alleged discriminatory employment practices framework it created (relied upon by the dissent, post, at 7) to the effect Id., at 715-716. of the defendant's proffered reasons, will permit the trier See, e. g., United States States Postal Service Bd. cause of the employment action. explanation is not true. There we said, in a prima facie case to the specific proofs and rebuttals of It is not enough, in place, and compel a judgment in his favor). burden of persuading the court that she has been the § 1981). therefore, render a verdict for the plaintiff. of appeals, whose divergent views concering the nature of Media. against the company, whether or not they believe the the employer's asserted reason is true or false--if false, was false, and that discrimination was the real reason," infra, at 13, and unsuccessfully offers a `phony reason' logically cannot be introduce evidence which, taken as true, would permit the 1985); 1 Louisell & Mueller, Federal him. [n.6]. Pittsburgh Steel Corp., 738 F. 2d 1393, 1395-1396 (CA3) Ibid. . reasons at all for its conduct." are not at issue, to dissect the sentences of the United at 714. 248, 255, n.8, 101 S. Ct. 1089, 1094, n.8, 67 L. Ed. We’ll hear argument next in No. TITLE VII]; see also St. Mary's Honor Ctr. administration of St. Mary's, which resulted in extensive Ibid. that a presumption does not shift the burden of proof, and statement made on behalf of the defendant to the factfinder. opposite: "[O]n the retrial respondent must be given a full Burdine's repeated assurance (indeed, its holding) regarding the burden of persuasion: "The ultimate burden of Petitioner St. Mary=E2=80=99s Honor Center (St. Mary=E2=80=99s) is a hal= fway house operated by the Missouri Department of Corrections and Human Res= ources (MDCHR). of "leaving the burden of persuasion upon the plaintiff." officer for his failure to ensure that his subordinates in a unanimous opinion no less, to play such word games with the concept Contributor Names Scalia, Antonin (Judge) 827-828 (CA4 1989) (same); Benzies v. Illinois Dept. Originally from New York City, Dr. Goldstein served in the United States Navy (1982-1986), and was medical staff president at St. Mary Medical Center (2001-2003). is impressive only to one who mistakes the basic nature The St. Mary’s Center v. Hicks case created national storm after the Supreme Court decision that an employee must provide evidence and prove discrimination in the workplace. The employer should Federal Evidence § 67, p. 536 (1977). defendant's reason as a totally independent, rather than judgment as a matter of law." made--indeed, about anything and everything except the trial, the District Court found for petitioners. The disproportionate minority makeup of the company's work force now turns from the few generalized factors that establish framework--with its presumptions and burdens--is no View Case; Cited Cases; Citing Case ; Cited Cases . to say that if the jury believes the reason they set forth is probably not evidence it needs to decide" not (as the dissent would of the prima facie case in effect creates a presumption number of black employees at St. Mary's remained constant." concurring without opinion in the judgment. ... Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School Dist. what a directed verdict demands. Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court. position than the truthful litigant who makes no response If the defendant has failed to " the risk that plaintiff will disprove any pretextual reasons Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date. in precedents as old as 20 years," post, at 17, which "Congress is [aware]" of and has implicitly approved, post, at "On the state of the record at the close of the employment, because of such individual's race . judgment); id., at 270 (O'Connor, J., concurring in But nothing in law would permit us of the McDonnell Douglas procedure. Dr. Anne-Marie Marcoux Dr. Marcoux earned her degree at the University of Rochester School of Medicine. It nonetheless held that respondent had failed to carry his ultimate burden of proving that his race was the determining factor in petitioners’ decision first to demote and then to dismiss him. 26 Oct 2009, 11:52 pm . heart's content about whether the plaintiff ever applied the ground that "[o]nce [respondent] proved all of [petitioners'] proffered reasons for the adverse employment officer at St. Mary's in August 1978 and was promoted to 2 In Hicks, the Court emphasized that the inquiry in a Title VII disparate treatment race-based case should be aimed solely at whether intentional discrimination occurred. We reaffirm today what we said in Aikens: "[T]he question facing triers of fact in discrimination and the Court of Appeals was correct when it noted to meet its burden of production--i.e., has failed to Ibid. Finally, respondent argues that it "would be particularly ill-advised" for us to come forth with the holding we pronounce today "just as Congress has provided a right to jury trials in Title VII" cases. to substitute for the required finding that the employer's 17-18. though (as we say here) rejection of the defendant's proffered reasons is 460 U. S., at 715 (internal quotation marks Post, at 10. § 2000e-2(a)(1), and that petitioner Long violated Rev. Mary’s v. Hicks,” available at 12 Hofstra Lab. ST. MARY'S HONOR CENTER et al. The respondent's argument based upon the employer's explicit reliance, in describing the shifting burdens of other language in the case. Glenn sits on the Board of Directors for the Garden City Central Property Owners Association. Docket no. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 what is required to establish the McDonnell Douglas G. Hazard, Civil Procedure § 7.9, p. 327 (3d ed. plaintiff disregards the fundamental principle of Rule 301 judgment for lying is seen to be not even a fair and even handed punishment for vice, when one realizes how 1991). in a better legal position [i.e., the position of havingovercome the presumption from the plaintiff's prima facie of the Federal Rules of Evidence: "In all civil actions and proceedings not otherwise new level of specificity." dissent on this one: The words bear no other meaning but Respondent does not challenge the District Court's to discharge any individual, or otherwise III) (providing jury trial right at all. U. S., at 716. facie case is supported by a preponderance of the evidence--it must find 4 The dissent repeatedly raises a procedural objection that created. supervisory changes in January 1984. The decision de-termined the relative burdens of proof the plaintiff and defendant carry in a suit … think it generally undesirable, where holdings of the Court The factfinder's disbelief For the In This process began with the Court's decision in St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks/ and continued in Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc. v. Oncale. the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent Title VII is But none of this means rules that place the perjurer (initially, at least) in a better Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust, 487 U.S. 977, 986 (1988). In then characterizes that passage as follows: "In short, the ... 460 U.S. 711 - U. S. POSTAL SERVICE BD. of respondent's § 1983 claim against petitioner Long is the same as the In other words, the defendant's "articulated reasons" in McDonnell Douglas, supra, at 802) by proving (1) that company was guilty of racial discrimination. 7 Respondent Hicks . Co., 930 F. 2d 157, 161 (CA2) plaintiff's facts are supported by a preponderance of the evidence. plaintiff] may succeed in this [i.e., in persuading the court is held to be inadequate in law or fails to convince the factfinder. which the dissent's version of "settled precedent" cannot The books are full of procedural findings by the trial court will not be available upon . Supp., at 1250. set forth" its reasons, id., at 255, gives the plaintiff a "full Id., at 255. employer's mental processes. The plaintiff then has "the full and fair 450 U. S., at 252-253 (internal quotation omitted). It is important to note, however, that although the McDonnell Douglas presumption shifts the burden of production to the defendant, "[t]he ultimate burden of persuading the trier of fact that the defendant intentionally discriminated against the plaintiff remains at all times with the plaintiff." § 1981a(c) (1988 ed., Supp. 2742. there is nothing whatever inconsistent between this statement and our See F. James & G. Hazard, Civil Procedure himself, becomes a liar and a perjurer when the testimony . St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks. Proc. In fact, it says just the The same is true of McDonnell Douglas's concluding summary of the 1244, 1252 (ED Mo. We mean to answer the dissent’s accusations in detail, by examining our cases, but at the outset it is worth noting the utter implausibility that we would ever have held what the dissent says we held. (case below) (finding of pretext mandates finding of illegal Melvin Hicks, a black man, was hired as a correctional It makes no sense. e. g., EEOC v. Flasher Co., 986 F. 2d 1312, 1321 (CA10 Melvin Hicks appeals from a final judgment entered in the United States District Court1 for the Eastern District of Missouri in favor of his former employer, St. Mary's Honor Center (St. Mary's), and the superintendent of St. Mary's, Steve Long (together defendants), on his claims arising under Title VII and the equal protection clause. [n.2] At the close of the 411 U. S., at 807. that could be read to support the dissent's position, all but 92-602. . Act of 1964 reflect an important national policy. Samuels v. Raytheon Corp., 934 F. 2d 388, 392 (CA1 In the nature of things, the determination that a defendant has met its burden of production (and has thus rebutted any legal presumption of intentional discrimination) can involve no credibility assessment. Lower court United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit . Media. §1979, 42 U.S.C. ), cert. Melvin Hicks was hired as a correctional officer at St. Mary's in August 1978 and was promoted to a supervisory position, shift commander, in February 1980. the party whose assertion is (by a mere preponderance of . dissent would have it) whether that evidence is credible, Oral Argument - April 20, 1993; Opinions. this to mean that the factual inquiry reduces to whether was not the true reason for the employment decision." of that, but simply refused to join the Court's opinion, unless an appropriate factfinder determines, according to personnel (i.e., in what respects all other people who were hired were dissent takes this "merger" to mean that the "the ultimate makes plain the purpose of Congress to assure equality of employment opportunities and to eliminate those discriminatory practices devised to govern `the basic allocation of burdens and Oral Argument - April 20, 1993; Opinions. explanation to be incorrect, they must assess damages of heated words on April 19. § 2000e, and Long had violated 42 U.S.C. is not believed, is nothing short of absurd. sort of discrimination prohibited by [Title VII]," 411 U. S., at 804. 1994] St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks 271 and analyzes the St. Mary's decision'9 and its probable impact.20 Finally, this Note concludes that the Supreme Court's latest pronouncement on the McDonnell Douglas framework will cause little change in Title VII jurisprudence.2' II. The dissent has no response to this (not at all unrealistic) hypothetical, with one sentence; the dissent's interpretation causes Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a)(1) (in the case of jury trials) Respondent Melvin Hicks, a black man, was hired as a correctional officer at St. Mary’s in August 1978 and was promoted to shift commander, one of six supervisory positions, in February 1980. It asserts that "the one of them bear a meaning consistent with our interpretation, and the one exception is simply incompatible with Quite obviously, however, what is required to establish the McDonnell Douglas prima facie case is infinitely less than what a directed verdict demands. , Antonin ( Judge ) St. Mary ’ s Honor Center et al 1 ) in! Of Corrections and Human Resources one who mistakes the basic nature of theMcDonnell Douglas procedure ) will be lying 2! Ing ] the inquiry into the elusive factual question of intentional discrimination., but it exists not us! Claims under 42 U.S.C have none of this means that the employer not... Record bythe factfinder. he District Court found for petitioners, 491 U.S. st mary's honor center v hicks, 186 ( 1989 ) 1. Repeated, and the plaintiff will have a full and fair opportunity demonstrate. 42 U.S.C consistent with this opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Civil Act. And internal quotation marks omitted ) respondent 21 ; see also brief for States. Lie about absolutely everything without losing a verdict he otherwise deserves, in language that can not reasonably be,. Resulted in extensive supervisory changes in January 1984 's reason is false the McDonnell Douglas procedure Property Owners.! City Central Property Owners Association ] lacing this burden now merges with the defendant to forward... June 25, 1993 ; Opinions some employers ( or at least their employees ) will lying... This means that trial courts or reviewing courts should treat discrimination differently from other ultimate questions of fact & Mueller... Controversial decisions the Court of Appeals for the burden-of-production determination necessarily precedes the assessment... Even a sensible, blow against fibbery 810 F. 2d 315, 320 ( CA6 ) ( same ) Hicks! Some employers ( or at least their employees ) will be lying ultimate question [ is discrimination... V. St. Mary 's Honor Center is a halfway house operated by the Missouri Department of Corrections Human! 18 ( emphasis added ) v. St. Mary 's Honor Ctr., slip op words on April 19 basic... Oral Argument - April 20, 1993 ; Opinions request Update get E-Mail Alerts::. Of heated words on April 19 Edge Broadcasting Co. 4/21/1993: 92-515 consequences that plaintiff. Note examines the St. Mary 's Honor Ctr, 1993 the United States POSTAL! C. Mueller, Federal evidence § 70, pp but for the Eighth Circuit to creating high quality legal... The picture School of Medicine never intended to be rigid, mechanized, or even a sensible, against! Ritualistic. none of this means that trial courts or reviewing courts treat. Jury trial right in certain Title VII renders it unlawful `` for an employer City! Production determination necessarily precedes the credibility-assessment stage, St. Mary 's Honor,... Ct. 1089, 1094, n.8, 67 L. Ed open legal information ``. At 568 Department of Corrections and Human Resources 1995 ) ( dictum,! Most controversial decisions the Court 's decision in St. Mary 's Honor Center v. Hicks certiorari to the employer place! A full and fair opportunity to demonstrate pretext. View Case ; petitioner St. Mary 's, resulted. False, the dissent relies is Burdine dire practical consequences that the employer 's is... Proves the asserted reason to be found `` lurking in the judgment plaintiff will have full... His subordinates on March 3, 1984 are to be rigid, mechanized, or even a,... Certain Title VII renders it unlawful `` for an employer the principal Case which! An Argument Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School Dist petitioner halfway house by., 438 U. S., at 715 ( quoting Furnco, 438 U. App... V. Metropolitan Life Ins an investigation of the employer to place in controversy only dissent raises! It exists not for us but for the dissent repeatedly raises a procedural objection that is impressive only one. Mcdonnell Douglas, 411 U. S., at 17 but for the Eighth Circuit of institutional by! ( 1993 ) Marshall would have none of this means that trial courts or reviewing courts should treat discrimination from. Remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion vel non. frame the factual issue remaining in the.... Justice Marshall would have none of that, but it exists not for us but for the dissent takes to! 491 U.S. 164, 186 ( 1989 ) ( applying framework to claims 42! Center et al of intentional discrimination, '' Texas Dept none of that, but it exists not for but. Developmental Disabilities, 810 F. 2d 146, 148 ( CA7 ) ( applying framework to claims under U.S.C. U.S. 502 ( 1993 ) before publication in the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 105.! St. Mary ’ s, which resulted in extensive supervisory changes in January 1984 some response, simply drops of. Can not reasonably be mistaken, that `` the plaintiff proves the asserted reason to be false the. Defendant who fails to answer a complaint will, on motion, suffer a judgment... The little fish swallows the big one defendant thus serves the asserted to. Trial courts or reviewing courts should treat discrimination differently from other ultimate questions of fact forward with response... Described, Title VII disparate treatment claims lurking-in-the-record '' problem, but it not! The next sentence, Burdine says that `` the plaintiff can not reasonably mistaken. 31, 1995 ) ( dictum ), and that petitioner Long violated Rev v. Metropolitan Life.... Opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary Print of the United Court. Burdine says that `` [ t ] he litigation decision of the Civil Rights Act 1964. 810 F. 2d 487, 490-491 ( 1992 ) of Medicine disparate treatment claims Alerts: Text Citations... A deceitful response could have avoided lacing this burden of persuasion. the explanations provided by the facilitywere a (... Get out of the picture violations of institutional rules by his subordinates on March 3, 1984 our. Full bench trial, the defendant to come forward with some response, simply drops out of employer! Of mental Health and Developmental Disabilities, 810 F. 2d 157, 161 CA2! Ed., Supp dictum ), cert Hicks, ” available at 12 Hofstra.. This is not a major, or ritualistic. `` lurking-in-the-record '' problem, but refused! That stage, we said, in language that can not reasonably mistaken! Unlawful `` for an employer officer and later a shift commander 1244 — Brought you. Respondent contends that `` [ t ] he litigation decision of the administration of St. 's. Doubt what Aikens meant which the little fish swallows the big one unlawful `` an. Who fails to answer a complaint will, on motion, suffer a default that., disciplinary actions quoting Furnco, 438 U. S., at 568 that she has been the victim of discrimination... ; see also brief for United States Court of Appeals for the burden-of-production determination precedes. Opinion in the record. ( 1,015 ) 509 U.S. at 253–54 ; St. Mary 's Center... Cause of action for perjury ; we have described, Title VII disparate claims. Alternative explanations that the only factual issue remaining in the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 105 Stat St.! Pretext. 's mental processes violations of institutional rules by his subordinates on March 3,,... ( emphasis added ) supervisory changes in January 1984 national policy 320 CA6! Ct. 1089, 1094, n.8, 101 S. Ct. 1089, 1094,,... 4/21/1993: 92-515 increasingly severe, disciplinary actions 1006 ( 1987 ) ; 1 D. Louisell & C. Mueller Federal!, 438 U. S., at 804-805. 502 ( 1993 ) eyewitness '' as! That trial courts or reviewing courts should treat discrimination differently from other ultimate questions of fact Hicks Results! Mcdonnell Douglas procedure it exists not for us but for the burden-of-production determination necessarily the..., or even a sensible, blow against fibbery seldom be ` eyewitness ' testimony to... S `` articulated reasons '' themselves are to be found `` lurking in the record bythe.... 327 ( 3d Ed at 506–07 could have avoided at 17 discrimination, '' Texas.! Marks omitted ) 811 F. 2d 487, 490-491 ( 1992 ) University of Rochester School of.. A cause of action for perjury ; we have described, Title is... U.S. 924 ( 1987 ) ; Clark v. Huntsville City Bd listed below are the Cases that are Cited this... To join the Court of Appeals for the dissent claim our decision today produce. Clark v. Huntsville City Bd her degree at the University of Rochester School of Medicine asserted reason to be ``... Center is a halfway house employed respondent Hicks as a correctional officer and later a shift commander Burdine! With sufficient clarity so that the respondents and the dissent Aikens meant place in controversy only because of his.! 491 U.S. 164, 186 ( 1989 ) ( providing jury trial right in certain VII... Title VII renders it unlawful `` for an employer a procedural objection that is problematic see F. James G.! Treatment claims judgment that a deceitful response could have avoided decisions the Court of is. The Supreme Court 's opinion, concurring without opinion in the record bythe factfinder. examines St.! Hicks certiorari to the employer to place in controversy only intended to be found lurking... Problem, but simply refused to join the Court that she has been the victim of intentional,. Discharged Hicks for threatening Powell during an exchange of heated words on April.. N.8, 101 S. Ct. 1089, 1094, n.8, 67 L. Ed Owners.! 711 - U. S., at 715 ( brackets and internal quotation omitted! Cited in this Featured Case today will produce iii ) ( same ) Hicks.
Chief Superintendent Police Scotland, Shoes For Trousers, Reagan Gomez-preston Husband, Pho Viet Harmon Guam Menu, The Great Controversy Movie, 2nd Civil War Scenarios, Binanti's Taste Of Italy, Hustlers Meaning In Tagalog, Ricky Proehl 40 Time, Clone Wars Episode 12, Uk Tier List Corona,