Supreme Court Says Pretext Alone Is Sufficient Basis For Proving Discrimination
 
July 1, 2000
 

In a unanimous decision issued in June 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified the standard for proving discrimination claims filed under federal law. The Court held that a jury may find in favor of a plaintiff claiming age discrimination if the plaintiff merely shows that the employer’s stated reason for his termination was false. In reversing a decision by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court reiterated a rule it established seven years ago, but that had not always been strictly followed in the lower federal courts: proof that an employer’s reasons for a termination are a pretext may, by itself, be sufficient to permit a jury to find discriminatory intent, even if there is no other evidence of discrimination. The decision highlights the importance of documenting employee performance problems as a means of avoiding discrimination claims.

The plaintiff in the case, Roger Reeves, was 57 years old at the time he was fired and had worked for Sanderson Plumbing Products, a toilet seat manufacturer, for 40 years. The company claimed it discharged Reeves mainly because he had incorrectly recorded absences and tardiness in the department he supervised and had failed to discipline employees who were absent or late. Sanderson also pointed out that it had terminated a younger employee at the same time it fired Reeves and that the company employed a number of managers who were over the age of 50.

In response, Reeves offered evidence that his record-keeping had been accurate and that he was not responsible for disciplining employees for violations of the attendance policy. Reeves also testified that one of the managers who recommended his firing had 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.” A co-worker testified that the manager had treated Reeves more harshly than younger employees.

A jury found that Sanderson fired Reeves because of his age and awarded him nearly $100,000 in damages, but the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the jury’s verdict. The Court of Appeals held that there was insufficient evidence at trial to prove discrimination. Specifically, the Fifth Circuit found that a reasonable jury might have concluded that Sanderson’s reasons for firing Reeves were pretextual, but that there was not enough evidence to show that those reasons were a pretext for age discrimination.

The Supreme Court reinstated the verdict in favor of Reeves, holding that a plaintiff may succeed in a discrimination claim if the jury does not believe the reason offered by the employer for a plaintiff’s termination. The Court explicitly rejected the Fifth Circuit’s position that Reeves needed to offer additional evidence of discrimination to prove his case other than simply demonstrating that his employer’s proffered reason for discharging him was false. Reiterating the holding in its 1993 decision in St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks, the Supreme Court stated that disbelief of the reasons for a termination, “particularly if disbelief is accompanied by a suspicion of mendacity,” may be sufficient to prove a discrimination claim.

The lesson of this case is one that employers have heard many times: it is important to methodically document employee performance problems. While a written record of poor performance is not an absolute defense to a discrimination claim, such a record can provide compelling evidence that the reasons given for a termination were not pretextual.

For more information please contact Douglas Phillips at 1-888-688-8500 or at dwphilli@hklaw.com.