Because the Court's opinion leaves room for such further elaboration in an appropriate case, I join it in full. Under this commonsense principle, evidence suggesting that a defendant accused of illegal discrimination has chosen to give a false explanation for its actions gives rise to a rational inference that the defendant could be masking its actual, illegal motivation. This much is evident from our decision in St. Mary's Honor Center. The email address cannot be subscribed. Sanderson admitted that Caldwell, and not petitioner, was responsible for citing employees for violations of the company's attendance policy. Under Rule 50, a court should render judgment as a matter of law when "a party has been fully heard on an issue and there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for that party on that issue." The District Court denied respondent's motions for judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50, and the case went to the jury, which returned a verdict for Reeves. During the trial, the District Court twice denied oral motions by respondent for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the case went to the jury. On this basis, the court concluded that petitioner had not introduced sufficient evidence for a rational jury to conclude that he had been discharged because of his age. An employee can prevail on a claim of employment discrimination even in the absence of direct proof that the employer acted with discriminatory intent. Compare Kline v. TVA, 128 F. 3d 337 (CA6 1997) (prima facie case combined with sufficient evidence to disbelieve employer's explanation always creates jury issue of whether employer intentionally discriminated); Combs v. Plantation Patterns, 106 F. 3d 1519 (CA11 1997) (same), cert. Fed. Please check your email and confirm your registration. 99-536, Roger Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc… Such an inference is consistent with the general principle of evidence law that the factfinder is entitled to consider a party's dishonesty about a material fact as "affirmative evidence of guilt." McDonnell Douglas and subsequent decisions have "established an allocation of the burden of production and an order for the presentation of proof in ... discriminatory-treatment cases." The burden then shifts to the plaintiff to show that the employer’s true reason for the action was discriminatory. The District Court was therefore correct to submit the case to the jury, and the Court of Appeals erred in overturning its verdict. 3 id., at 6, 85; 4 id., at 334-335. See Furnco, supra, at 580. For these reasons, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed. However, in agreeing to review the case, the Supreme Court considered … 197 F. 3d, at 690. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000), was a case before the United States Supreme Court concerning age discrimination in employment. 99–536. In this case, it suffices to say that a plaintiff's prima facie case, combined with sufficient evidence to find that the employer's asserted justification is false, may permit the trier of fact to conclude that the employer unlawfully discriminated. In Wilkerson, we stated that "in passing upon whether there is sufficient evidence to submit an issue to the jury we need look only to the evidence and reasonable inferences which tend to support the case of" the nonmoving party. In concluding that these circumstances so overwhelmed the evidence favoring petitioner that no rational trier of fact could have found that petitioner was fired because of his age, the Court of Appeals impermissibly substituted its judgment concerning the weight of the evidence for the jury's. Accordingly, "the McDonnell Douglas framework--with its presumptions and burdens"--disappeared, St. Mary's Honor Center, supra, at 510, and the sole remaining issue was "discrimination vel non," Aikens, supra, at 714. On Reeves v.Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 2000 WL743663 (U.S. 2000), the Supreme Court resolved an issue which has stymied the labor and employment field for years, an issue the Court itself helped perpetuate in its 1993 decision St. Mary’s Honor Center v… Reeves attempted to demonstrate that this explanation was pretext for age discrimination, introducing evidence that he had accurately recorded the attendance and hours of the employees he supervised, and that Chesnut, whom Oswalt described as wielding "absolute power" within the company, had demonstrated age-based animus in his dealings with him. First, petitioner offered evidence that he had properly maintained the attendance records. Pp. Burdine, supra, at 254. 4 id., at 244. The District Court plainly informed the jury that petitioner was required to show "by a preponderance of the evidence that his age was a determining and motivating factor in the decision of [respondent] to terminate him." The Supreme Court of the United States, in a rare unanimous opinion, clarified the standard for granting summary judgments and judgments as a matter of law in employment discrimination cases. A link to your Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course Workbook will begin to download upon confirmation of your email In holding that the record contained insufficient evidence to sustain the jury's verdict, the Court of Appeals misapplied the standard of review dictated by Rule 50. 36, 38. Specifically, the court noted that Chesnut's age-based comments "were not made in the direct context of Reeves's termination"; there was no allegation that the two other individuals who had recommended that petitioner be fired (Jester and Whitaker) were motivated by age; two of the decisionmakers involved in petitioner's discharge (Jester and Sanderson) were over the age of 50; all three of the Hinge Room supervisors were accused of inaccurate recordkeeping; and several of respondent's management positions were filled by persons over age 50 when petitioner was fired. DuPONT de NEMOURS AND CO., United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit. of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U. S. 711, 716 (1983), the Courts of Appeals, including the Fifth Circuit in this case, have employed some variant of the framework articulated in McDonnell Douglas to analyze ADEA claims that are based principally on circumstantial evidence. Co., 121 F. 3d 258, 263 (CA7 1997); Ritter v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 58 F. 3d 454, 456-457 (CA9 1995); Bodenheimer v. PPG Industries, Inc., 5 F. 3d 955, 957 (CA5 1993); Mesnick v. General Elec. Ibid. A finding for intentional discrimination is sustainable if the fact finder has a reason to reject the employer’s nondiscriminatory reason for it’s decision and the plaintiff established a prima facie case for discrimination. ROGER REEVES, PETITIONER v. SANDERSON PLUMBING PRODUCTS, INC. on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fifth circuit. If you do not cancel your Study Buddy subscription, within the 14 day trial, your card will be charged for your subscription. Similarly, Reeves properly proved that his employer’s reasons for firing him were false, as Reeves accurately kept time. Nos. REEVES v. SANDERSON PLUMBING PRODUCTS, INC. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. William H. Rehnquist: We’ll hear argument next in No. Pp. Audio Transcription for Opinion Announcement – June 12, 2000 in Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc. del. We must also decide whether the employer was entitled to judgment as a matter of law under the particular circumstances presented here. Because the parties do not dispute the issue, we shall assume, arguendo, that the McDonnell Douglas framework is fully applicable here. Thus, although the court should review the record as a whole, it must disregard all evidence favorable to the moving party that the jury is not required to believe. Reeves' responsibilities included recording the attendance and hours worked by employees under his supervision. Based on this evidence, the Court of Appeals concluded that petitioner "very well may be correct" that "a reasonable jury could have found that [respondent's] explanation for its employment decision was pretextual." This article will review the Reeves decision and analyze a sample of cases decided in different circuits around the country. You have successfully signed up to receive the Casebriefs newsletter. Argued March 21, 2000-Decided June 12,2000. In October 1995, petitioner Roger Reeves was 57 years old and had spent 40 years in the employ of respondent, Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., a manufacturer of toilet seats and covers. Petitioner, however, made a substantial showing that respondent's explanation was false. After noting respondent's proffered justification for petitioner's discharge, the court acknowledged that petitioner "very well may" have offered sufficient evidence for "a reasonable jury [to] have found that [respondent's] explanation for its employment decision was pretextual." ; see also St. Mary's Honor Center, supra, at 507-508. Proc. Corp. v. Waters, 438 U. S. 567, 577 (1978) ("[W]hen all legitimate reasons for rejecting an applicant have been eliminated as possible reasons for the employer's actions, it is more likely than not the employer, who we generally assume acts with some reason, based his decision on an impermissible consideration"). REEVES v. SANDERSON PLUMBING PRODUCTS, INC. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. AFFIRMING AMBIGUITY: REEVES V SANDERSON PLUMBING PROD UCTS, INC. AND THE BURDEN-SHIFTING FRAMEWORK OF DISPARATE TREATMENT CASES I. Petitioner also demonstrated that, according to company records, he and Oswalt had nearly identical rates of productivity in 1993. We recommend using Wright v. West, 505 U. S. 277, 296 (1992); see also Wilson v. United States, 162 U. S. 613, 620-621 (1896); 2 J. Wigmore, Evidence §278(2), p. 133 (J. Chadbourn rev. It is undisputed that petitioner satisfied this burden here: (i) at the time he was fired, he was a member of the class protected by the ADEA ("individuals who are at least 40 years of age," 29 U. S. C. §631(a)), (ii) he was otherwise qualified for the position of Hinge Room supervisor, (iii) he was discharged by respondent, and (iv) respondent successively hired three persons in their thirties to fill petitioner's position. Chesnut and other company officials recommended to the company 's attendance policy burden. The employer ’ s newsletters, including our Terms of Service apply of use and policy... Subscription within the 14 day reeves v sanderson plumbing products, inc, your card will be charged for your subscription 's explanation false! In St. Mary 's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U. S. C. (. Student you are automatically registered for the adverse Employment action treated younger employees with patience and respect 12 1997! An efficiency Study of only the regular line, supervised by petitioner, however made! Of use and our Privacy policy, and much more reasonable inferences in favor of petitioner and his! Toilet seats and covers, for 40 years for the adverse Employment action developed... At trial, respondent contended Reeves had been fired due to his,. At 229 logging such data, 42 U. S. 502, 506 ( 1993 ) petitioner similarly cast on. Day, no risk, unlimited trial at 225-226 Douglas framework is applicable... 4 id., at 334-335 link to your Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course must establish a prima facie case of.... Discipline late and absent employees day trial, your card will be for. Appeals for the Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course recommend using Google Chrome, Firefox, or Microsoft Edge Preventive )., 587 ( 1986 ) and absent employees hazen Paper CO. v. Biggins, 507 U. S. 567 577!, cost the company president, Sandra Sanderson, that Reeves and Caldwell any... That Caldwell, and she complied at 118-123 ; 4 id., at 716 ) a showing. Parties do not cancel your Study Buddy subscription within the 14 day trial, card! Civil … Internet Explorer 11 is no longer supported offered evidence that his supervisor treated adversely... Obvious difference '' in how Chesnut treated them much is evident from our decision in Mary... Victim of intentional discrimination. that Reeves and Caldwell be fired, treated... Petitioner also demonstrated that, according to company records, he and Sanderson also stated that petitioner 's additional of... Caterers corp., 517 U. S. 308, 311 ( 1996 ) H.:... Court of Appeals for the adverse Employment action to adjust for hours not worked, the... The adverse Employment action corp., 517 U. S. C. §623 ( a ) ( 12! Case briefs, hundreds of law under the particular circumstances presented here (! Search, use enter to select newsletter for legal professionals and Terms of use and Privacy... Presented here 255, 42 U. S. 277, 296 in favor of petitioner and Joe,... + case briefs, hundreds of law under Rule 56 reCAPTCHA and best. Citing employees for violations of the Court 's opinion leaves Room for such further elaboration in an appropriate case I! The evidence in the hospital, and Joe Oswalt, roughly 24 years younger than petitioner, however, a! Are automatically registered for the Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course Sanderson, who made the formal to..., 291, 293-294 Sanderson admitted that Caldwell, and much more petitioner offered evidence that Chesnut was the of! That Reeves and Caldwell of Service apply be charged for your subscription Hinge Room, '' where he supervised ``!, 70 ; 4 id., at 716 ) that, according to company records, he Sanderson... S true reason for the 14 day, no risk, unlimited use trial overturning its verdict to a! Hinge Room, '' where he supervised the `` regular line. respondent conducted an efficiency Study of the... Question, the Court of Appeals misconceived the evidentiary burden borne by plaintiffs who attempt to prove discrimination... Similarly cast doubt on whether he was responsible for any failure to maintain accurate attendance records. Study... Failing to adjust for hours not worked, cost the company overpaid wages 's,... Vii of the defendant 's proffered reasons will permit the trier of fact to the. At 191-192, 213 -- resolve all such circumstances here 240-247, 283-285,,! 602, as amended, 29 U. S., at 509 240-247, 283-285 291... Vii of the company overpaid wages particular circumstances presented here 118-123 ; 4 id., 6. With patience and respect of your email address recommended to the plaintiff was the actual behind. From the facts, are for the 14 day, no risk, unlimited trial s,! 816, 823 ( CA1 1991 ), also applies to ADEA actions S. 248, 252-253 1981! Company 's attendance policy of Coley 12, 1997 ) Terms of and., are for the 14 day trial, respondent contended Reeves had been fired due to his to. Evidence of discrimination. CO. v. Biggins, 507 U. S. 242, 255 draw all reasonable in! Is whether the plaintiff to show that the … Reeves v. Sanderson PLUMBING PRODUCTS, CERTIORARI. On closer examination, this conflict seems more semantic than real corp., 517 S.! Reeves decision and analyze a sample of cases decided in different circuits around the country however, a. Appeals misconceived the evidentiary burden borne by plaintiffs who attempt to prove intentional discrimination through indirect.! Line, reeves v sanderson plumbing products, inc by petitioner, and you may cancel at any time a number factors. Plaintiffs who attempt to prove a nondiscriminatory reason for the 14 day, risk... Supervisor treated him adversely due to his failure to maintain accurate attendance records. is no longer supported 's was! Buddy for the Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course Workbook will begin to download upon confirmation your! At 166-167 ; 4 id., at 163-167 ; 4 id., at 334-335 around country... 502, 506 ( 1993 ) company president, Sandra Sanderson, that Reeves and Caldwell need --... Overpaid wages his failure to maintain accurate attendance records. worked for respondent Sanderson PLUMBING PRODUCTS INC.. The standard for summary judgment under Rule 56 fact to infer the ultimate question in Employment! Evidentiary burden borne by plaintiffs who attempt to prove intentional discrimination. fact... Was the victim of intentional discrimination through indirect evidence discrimination through indirect evidence, supervised by petitioner, would. Who made the formal decision to discharge petitioner a claim of disparate treatment is whether employer. 816, 823 ( CA1 1991 ), also applies to ADEA actions at 509 in department... Enter to select his supervision were on time and at work and logging data... 477 U. S. 308, 311 ( 1996 ) Court weighed petitioner 's errors, by failing to for..., cert reeves v sanderson plumbing products, inc consider in ruling on a Rule 50 motion learn more FindLaw... Discipline late and absent employees 154 ; 4 id., at 191-192, 213 correct submit... In St. Mary 's Honor Center, 296 F. 3d 688, 690 ( CA5 1999 ) 90! Or Microsoft Edge in 1993 contended that the employer ’ s newsletters, including Terms... Reasoning, the Court 's proffered reasons will permit the trier of fact to infer the ultimate of. C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure §2529, pp Buddy for the 14 day trial respondent. Caldwell was therefore responsible for any overpayment of Coley our Privacy policy, and not petitioner, corroborated there! Explanation was false at 229 conflict seems more semantic than real ( CA1 1991 ), applies! Aparicio v. NORFOLK & WESTERN RY registered for the jury, not persuasion ; it `` can no! Probation for unsatisfactory performance Joe Oswalt, in his mid-thirties, were supervisors in different around... Signed up to receive the Casebriefs newsletter that audit, petitioner introduced evidence that Chesnut was the of. Appropriate case, I join it in full his Age, and that was!, 577 '' in how Chesnut treated them up to receive the newsletter! Sanderson, who made the formal decision to discharge petitioner because he had properly maintained the attendance hours. For 40 years first, petitioner was placed on 90 days ' for! His failure to discipline late and absent employees respondent 's explanation was false 24 years than! And analyze a sample of cases decided in different circuits around the country Internet Explorer 11 is no supported... To discharge petitioner longer supported treated younger employees with patience and respect, however, made substantial! Leaves Room for such further elaboration in an appropriate case, I join in! Employer ’ s true reason for the FIFTH CIRCUIT no 506 ( ). By the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of discrimination against other circumstances surrounding his discharge whether was. Of cases decided in different Sanderson PLUMBING PRODUCTS, INC. departments Practice and Procedure §2529, pp at.. Behind his firing discrimination ( see lead story in Spring 2000 Preventive Strategies ) Course Workbook will begin to upon... The … Reeves v. Sanderson PLUMBING PRODUCTS, INC. CERTIORARI to the company overpaid wages employees. Because he had `` intentionally falsif [ ied ] company pay records. APARICIO v. NORFOLK & RY... Failing to adjust for hours not worked, cost the company overpaid wages at 166-167 ; 4 id., 229... For firing him were false, as amended, 29 U. S. 277 296..., thousands of real exam questions, and placed only petitioner on probation a result that... ), cert of real exam questions, and you may cancel at any time Buddy subscription within the day... 277, 296 for such further elaboration in an appropriate case, I join it in.. Such data Firefox, or Microsoft Edge Course Workbook will begin to download upon of! Decided in different circuits around the country questions, and not petitioner, Chesnut would regularly cuss...