Supreme Court To Consider Whether Pretext Supports Verdict or Whether Discriminatory Intent Also Required
January 1, 2000
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed last month to address the question of when a
court may overturn a jury verdict in a discrimination case under federal law. In
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., Roger Reeves, who worked as a
supervisor for a toilet seat manufacturer, claimed he was fired because of his
age. Reeves worked for Sanderson for 40 years before he was fired at age 57. A
jury rendered a verdict in favor of Reeves, but an appellate court reversed the
jury's decision.
At trial, Reeves testified that before he was fired, one of the three
supervisors who recommended that he be discharged told him that he was "too
damn old to do the job" and that he was so old that he "must have come
over on the Mayflower." Sanderson claimed that it discharged Reeves because
there were productivity problems in his department resulting from Reeves'
failure to monitor the tardiness and absences of the employees he supervised.
The employer also offered evidence that it also terminated a younger employee
for the same reason, and that it would have terminated a third employee, who was
in his thirties, for the same reason if that employee had not resigned first.
Sanderson argued that it did not discriminate against older workers and that the
company employed a number of other managers in their fifties and sixties. Reeves
disputed Sanderson's claim that his department had productivity problems.
The jury found that Reeves was fired because of his age and the trial court
awarded him nearly $100,000 in damages. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals reversed the verdict. The Court of Appeals held that there was
insufficient evidence at trial to show that Reeves was fired because of his age.
According to the Fifth Circuit, a reasonable jury might have found that
Sanderson's stated reasons for firing Reeves were pretextual. However, the Court
of Appeals concluded that there was not enough additional evidence to prove that
age discrimination was the real reason for Reeves' termination.
In his petition to the Supreme Court, Reeves argued that the Fifth Circuit
misapplied the Supreme Court's 1993 holding in Saint Mary's Honor Center v.
Hicks. In Hicks, the Court held that, if the reasons given by an employer for
terminating an employee are not the real reasons, the jury may find, but is not
required to find, that the employer is liable for discrimination. Reeves also
argued that, in light of the evidence of age-related remarks by his employer,
the Fifth Circuit should not have second-guessed the jury's decision.
The Reeves case may provide an opportunity for the Supreme Court to refine
its holding in Hicks. The Supreme Court may also provide guidance about when
lower courts may overturn a jury verdict in cases where there is disputed
evidence about discriminatory intent. The Court's decision also could have an
impact on the standard for dismissing claims before trial on summary judgment
motions. A decision by the Supreme Court is expected by June 2000.
For more information please call Douglas Phillips at 1-888-688-8500.
Related Practices