Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc.

Last updated
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc.
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 21, 2000
Decided June 12, 2000
Full case nameReeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc.
Citations530 U.S. 133 ( more )
120 S. Ct. 2097; 147 L. Ed. 2d 105
Case history
Prior197 F.3d 688 (5th Cir. 1999), reversed
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens  · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
David Souter  · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg  · Stephen Breyer
Case opinions
MajorityO'Connor, joined by unanimous
ConcurrenceGinsburg
Laws applied
Age Discrimination in Employment Act

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.

Contents

Background

In 1995, 57-year-old Roger Reeves and Joe Oswalt, who was in his mid-thirties, were supervisors at Sanderson Plumbing Products, being managed by 45-year-old Russell Caldwell. Caldwell reported a drop in production in the summer of 1995 to the director of manufacturing, Powe Chesnut, who was also married to the president of the company, Sandra Sanderson. Chesnut investigated briefly, and determined that Reeves, Oswalt, and Caldwell had all made errors in tracking time worked by their employees. Chesnut recommended to Sanderson that she fire Reeves and Caldwell, and in October 1995, she followed that recommendation. [1]

Procedural history

In June 1996, Reeves sued in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. He alleged that Chesnut "had demonstrated age-based animus" while they were working together, and that he had "absolute power" to make employment decisions, due to his position and his relationship with the president of the company. [2] That case ended with the judge instructing the jury that Reeves must prove that age "was a determinative or motivating factor" in the employment decision in order to find in favor of the plaintiff, and the jury returned a verdict awarding Reeves $35,000 in compensatory damages and an additional $35,000 in liquidated damages based on the willfulness of the discrimination. [3]

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, saying that Reeves did not provide enough evidence to prove that his age was the cause of the employment decision in question. This decision arose out of the determination that the discriminatory comments made by Chesnut "were not made in the direct context of Reeves's termination". [3]

Questions at issue

The court granted certiorari primarily to address the question of whether a prima facie case of discrimination is "adequate to sustain a finding of liability for intentional discrimination" against the employer, when "sufficient evidence" is provided to disprove the employer's defense of its decision. [4]

Opinion of the Court

Justice O'Connor delivered the majority opinion. Her first task was to set out the context of the case, starting with explaining that she would assume that McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green , 411 U.S. 792 (1973), was the relevant standard for analyzing a case brought under the ADEA, because nobody had disputed that fact, even though the court had never addressed that issue before. [5] She also noted that they would assume that the plaintiff met his burden in laying out a prima facie case against the defendant, because again, nobody had disputed that contention, and ample supporting evidence had been presented. [5]

She then turned to the next stage of the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework to determine whether the defendant had then provided adequate evidence that the employment decision in question had been made for "a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason." [6] That burden, too, was met, according to O'Connor's analysis.

The final prong considered in the case was whether the plaintiff had provided, after the defendant's production of evidence of a nondiscriminatory reason for the decision, proof by "a preponderance of the evidence" that the defendant's reason is merely pretext. [7] On this point, the court noted that most of the defendant's evidence for nondiscrimination was negated by the plaintiff at trial, and also that the Fifth Circuit agreed, but did not find this to be sufficient for a ruling in favor of Reeves. [8] O'Connor explained that the Fifth Circuit was correct to think that the trial court could find in favor of the defendant if the nondiscriminatory reason was not disproven beyond a reasonable doubt, but they were mistaken in claiming that they were compelled to. [9] The reasoning is that, if an employer is shown to be untruthful about the reason for a decision, they may be inferred to have been covering up actual discrimination. [10]

The court stopped short of saying that a court must assume discrimination where a nondiscriminatory reason is shown to be false. The trier of fact may reasonably find for the employer where the plaintiff makes only a weak showing of evidence as to the untruth of the employer's defense, or where there is ample evidence of another nondiscriminatory reason that the employer did not offer. [11]

After determining that the trial court could have found in favor of Reeves, O'Connor turned to examining the procedural questions at hand. She determined that respondent had not been entitled to a judgment as a matter of law, both because there was a question of fact to be decided by a jury in evaluating the truth of the defendant's nondiscriminatory explanation, and because the court of appeals should have reviewed the entire record in a manner favorable to the nonmoving party, which in this case was Reeves. [12]

Justice Ginsburg's opinion concurring

Justice Ginsburg concurred but suggested that, because the court of appeals required Reeves to produce evidence that was neither a prima facie case nor evidence contradicting the defendant's proffered reasons, their decision could be overturned without any broader holding. [13]

She also wrote separately to note that future cases may require the court to examine exactly which circumstances may give rise to the plaintiff being required to provide further evidence. She stated that such cases will be rare, because a dishonest defendant may be assumed to have some level of culpability, based on a fundamental principle of evidence law. [13]

Significance

This case lays out a framework for determining liability as part of the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework, and clarifies parts of that framework as it applies to cases where the employer's reasons for making the decision are shown to be false. This was also the first case brought under the ADEA where the Supreme Court used the McDonnell Douglas framework to make their decision, though they left that question open for another case to decide, mostly because they weren't asked to rule on the matter.

Related Research Articles

Burden of proof is a legal duty that encompasses two connected but separate ideas that apply for establishing the truth of facts in a trial before tribunals in the United States: the "burden of production" and the "burden of persuasion." In a legal dispute, one party is initially presumed to be correct, while the other side bears the burden of producing evidence persuasive enough to establish the truth of facts needed to satisfy all the required legal elements of the dispute. There are varying types of burden of persuasion commonly referred to as standards of proof, and depending on the type of case, the standard of proof will be higher or lower. Burdens of persuasion and production may be of different standards for each party, in different phases of litigation. The burden of production is a minimal burden to produce at least enough evidence for the trier of fact to consider a disputed claim. After litigants have met the burden of production, they have the burden of persuasion: that enough evidence has been presented to persuade the trier of fact that their side is correct. There are different standards of persuasiveness ranging from a preponderance of the evidence, where there is just enough evidence to tip the balance, to proof beyond a reasonable doubt, as in United States criminal courts.

Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court ruling that a prosecutor's use of a peremptory challenge in a criminal case—the dismissal of jurors without stating a valid cause for doing so—may not be used to exclude jurors based solely on their race. The Court ruled that this practice violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case gave rise to the term Batson challenge, an objection to a peremptory challenge based on the standard established by the Supreme Court's decision in this case. Subsequent jurisprudence has resulted in the extension of Batson to civil cases and cases where jurors are excluded on the basis of sex.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Civil Rights Act of 1991</span>

The Civil Rights Act of 1991 is a United States labor law, passed in response to United States Supreme Court decisions that limited the rights of employees who had sued their employers for discrimination. The Act represented the first effort since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to modify some of the basic procedural and substantive rights provided by federal law in employment discrimination cases. It provided the right to trial by jury on discrimination claims and introduced the possibility of emotional distress damages and limited the amount that a jury could award. It added provisions to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protections expanding the rights of women to sue and collect compensatory and punitive damages for sexual discrimination or harassment.

Disparate impact in United States labor law refers to practices in employment, housing, and other areas that adversely affect one group of people of a protected characteristic more than another, even though rules applied by employers or landlords are formally neutral. Although the protected classes vary by statute, most federal civil rights laws protect based on race, color, religion, national origin, and sex as protected traits, and some laws include disability status and other traits as well.

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court. Written by Associate Justice William Rehnquist, the decision of the Court held that a party moving for summary judgment need show only that the opposing party lacks evidence sufficient to support its case. A broader version of that doctrine was later formally added to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), is a US employment law case by the United States Supreme Court regarding the burdens and nature of proof in proving a Title VII case and the order in which plaintiffs and defendants present proof. It was the seminal case in the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework.

Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557 (2009), is a United States labor law case of the United States Supreme Court on unlawful discrimination through disparate impact under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust, 487 U.S. 977 (1988), is a United States Supreme Court case on United States labor law, concerning proof of disparate treatment under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993), was a US labor law case before the United States Supreme Court on the burden of proof and the relevance of intent for race discrimination.

McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting or the McDonnell-Douglas burden-shifting framework refers to the procedure for adjudicating a motion for summary judgement under a Title VII disparate treatment claim, in particular a "private, non-class action challenging employment discrimination", that lacks direct evidence of discrimination. It was introduced by the United States Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas v. Green and Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine and has been elaborated on in subsequent cases.

Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (1981), is a United States labor law case of the United States Supreme Court.

Disparate treatment is one kind of unlawful discrimination in US labor law. In the United States, it means unequal behavior toward someone because of a protected characteristic under Title VII of the United States Civil Rights Act. This contrasts with disparate impact, where an employer applies a neutral rule that treats everyone equally in form, but has a disadvantageous effect on some people of a protected characteristic compared to others.

"Mixed motive" discrimination is a category of discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

<i>DeMarco v. Holy Cross High School</i> American legal case

DeMarco v. Holy Cross High School 4 F.3d 166 was an employment discrimination case brought under the ADEA. The appellant, Guy DeMarco, was released from employment prior to his eligibility for tenure at the age of forty-nine. Holy Cross High School argued that it was not subject to ADEA laws, and if it were that this case against it was in violation of the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The defendant also argued that the plaintiff failed to utilize the administrative remedies available.

Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court on the issues of prescriptive sex discrimination and employer liability for sex discrimination. The employee, Ann Hopkins, sued her former employer, the accounting firm Price Waterhouse. She argued that the firm denied her partnership because she did not fit the partners' idea of what a female employee should look and act like. The employer failed to prove that it would have denied her partnership anyway, and the Court held that constituted sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The significance of the Supreme Court's ruling was twofold. First, it established that gender stereotyping is actionable as sex discrimination. Second, it established the mixed-motive framework that enables employees to prove discrimination when other, lawful reasons for the adverse employment action exist alongside discriminatory motivations or reasons.

Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725 (1983), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the legality of redistricting, and possibly gerrymandering, in the state of New Jersey.

Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (1977), often shortened to Mt. Healthy v. Doyle, was a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court decision arising from a fired teacher's lawsuit against his former employer, the Mount Healthy City Schools. The Court considered three issues: whether federal-question jurisdiction existed in the case, whether the Eleventh Amendment barred federal lawsuits against school districts, and whether the First and Fourteenth Amendments prevented the district, as a government agency, from firing or otherwise disciplining an employee for constitutionally protected speech on a matter of public concern where the same action might have taken place for other, unprotected activities. Justice William Rehnquist wrote the opinion.

Bundy v. Jackson, 641 F.2d 934, was a D.C. Circuit opinion, written by Judge Skelly Wright, that held that workplace sexual harassment could constitute employment discrimination under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Young v. United Parcel Service, 575 U.S. 206 (2015), is a United States Supreme Court case that the Court evaluated the requirements for bringing a disparate treatment claim under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. In a 6–3 decision, the Court held that to bring such a claim, a pregnant employee must show that their employer refused to provide accommodations and that the employer later provided accommodations to other employees with similar restrictions. The Court then remanded the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to determine whether the employer engaged in discrimination under this new test.

Babb v. Wilkie, 589 U.S. ___ (2020), is a case of the United States Supreme Court in which the justices considered the scope of protections for federal employees in the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. Specifically, the Court ruled that plaintiffs only need to prove that age was a motivating factor in the decision in order to sue. However, establishing but for causation is still necessary in determining the appropriate remedy. If a plaintiff can establish that the age was the determining factor in the employment outcome, they may be entitled to compensatory damages or other relief relating to the end result of the employment decision.

References

  1. ↑ Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 137-38 (2000).
  2. ↑ Reeves, 530 U.S. at 138.
  3. 1 2 Reeves, 530 U.S. at 139.
  4. ↑ Reeves, 530 U.S. at 140.
  5. 1 2 Reeves, 530 U.S. at 142.
  6. ↑ Ibid., quoting Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine , 450 U.S. 248, 254 (1981).
  7. ↑ Reeves, 530 U.S. at 144.
  8. ↑ Reeves, 530 U.S. at 144-146.
  9. ↑ Reeves, 530 U.S. at 146.
  10. ↑ Reeves, 530 U.S. at 147.
  11. ↑ Reeves, 530 U.S. at 148-149.
  12. ↑ Reeves, 530 U.S. at 151-152.
  13. 1 2 Reeves, 530 U.S. at 154 (Ginsburg, J., concurring).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.