Privacy, Business and Law

The Supreme Court of the United States unanimously held that an employee can win a discrimination suit without proving intent or introducing direct evidence of discrimination. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 120 S. Ct. 2097 (2000).

Roger Reeves, a 57 year old supervisor for a toilet seat manufacturer, was fired from his job. Reeves filed suit against his employer, alleging that he was terminated because of his age in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). At trial, the employer argued that Reeves had been fired due to his failure to maintain accurate attendance records and for falsifying time records. Reeves argued that the true reason for his termination was his age, introducing evidence that he had accurately recorded the attendance and hours of the employees under his supervision and that his supervisor had demonstrated age-based animosity towards him.

A jury found in Reeves favor, awarding him $70,000 in damages and $28,490 in lost income, finding that age was a motivating factor in the decision to terminate Reeves. However, the appellate court reversed, stating that Reeves had not offered sufficient proof to support the jury’s verdict of unlawful discrimination. The United States Supreme Court took the case to resolve a conflict between lower courts as to whether an employee’s initial case of discrimination, combined with evidence that the employer’s explanation for its action is false, is enough to sustain a finding of liability for intentional discrimination. Ultimately, the Supreme Court concluded that a jury could infer discriminatory intent from circumstantial evidence and reinstated the jury verdict for Reeves.

In this case, the Court held that Reeves made an initial showing of discrimination because he was over 40, otherwise qualified for his position, was fired by his employer, and was replaced with someone substantially younger. Reeves’s employer countered that Reeves was fired due to his failure to maintain accurate attendance records. However, Reeves discredited this explanation and argued that it was simply a cover for discrimination by introducing evidence that he in fact had properly maintained the attendance records, was not responsible for any failure to discipline late and absent employees, and was subjected to derogatory comments about his age from his supervisor.

The Supreme Court pointed out that an employee’s initial or prima facie case along with evidence that the employer’s explanation was false can be but will not always be adequate to sustain a jury’s finding of liability:

Certainly there will be instances where, although the plaintiff has established a prima facie case and set forth sufficient evidence to reject the defendant’s explanation, no rational factfinder could conclude that the action was discriminatory. For instance, an employer would be entitled to judgment as a matter of law if the record conclusively revealed some other, nondiscriminatory reason for the employer’s decision, or if the plaintiff created only a weak issue of fact as to whether the employer’s reason was untrue and there was abundant and uncontroverted independent evidence that no discrimination had occurred.

Nonetheless, this case is a huge setback for employers. The Supreme Court’s decision settles a longstanding dispute between federal circuit courts on whether employees who make a prima facie case of discrimination and discredit the employer’s asserted reason for the adverse treatment must also offer direct evidence of a discriminatory motive. Now it is clear that no additional proof of discriminatory intent is needed to get to a jury.

One very important practical lesson is taught by the case. Employers must be straightforward and honest about the reasons for the termination. As this case demonstrates, if employers are not honest, juries will have the chance to presume the worst and infer discriminatory intent.