150 North Wacker Drive Suite 1100 Chicago, IL 60606-1605

Telephone: (312) 782-1829 Telefax: (312) 782-4868 E-Mail: kkrlaw@kkrlaw.com Web: www.kkrlaw.com

Proof to Establish Age Bias Clarified by Supreme Court

The Supreme Court's decision reinforces the importance for employers to have credible and convincing evidence to prove a nondiscriminatory reason for job actions.

In a closely watched employment discrimination case, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a plaintiff in an age bias suit does not have to offer direct evidence of an employer's illegal intent to discriminate in order to prevail at trial. (Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing, No. 99-536). The ruling makes it easier for employees claiming on-the-job discrimination to recover damages and is likely to increase the number of such claims reaching a jury. The case was initiated by Robert Reeves, a 57-year old man who was fired from his job as a production line supervisor for Sanderson Plumbing Co. At trial, Reeves was able to prove that even though he was qualified for the job, he was fired and replaced by a substantially younger employee. Sanderson Plumbing defended its decision with an explanation that Reeves was fired for poor record keeping. But Reeves argued that the company's explanation was phony. He was able to produce evidence that cast considerable doubt on the veracity of Sanderson's explanation for its termination decision.

The jury rejected the employer's explanation and found that Reeves was fired because of his age. The Court of Appeals threw out the jury verdict and said that even if the company's explanation was phony, Reeves still failed to prove that the real reason for termination was his age.

The U.S. Supreme Court reinstated the jury's verdict. In so doing, the court held that it is usually up to the jury to determine whether giving a false explanation is enough to establish that the true explanation was illegal discrimination. The jury must be allowed to conclude that if the employer is lying about its reason for firing an employee, then the employer must be trying to cover up the real reason. The jury must then determine whether the real reason is an illegal reason such as age, gender, race or religion.

There must be some evidence to support the jury's verdict that an illegal reason motivated the employer's termination decision. But the case does not even get to the jury unless the fired employee has already showed that he or she was qualified for the job and replaced in such a way as to raise an inference of discrimination.

Jury Verdicts Entitled to Deference

In this case, as in most age discrimination cases, the fired employee was replaced by someone substantially younger. That fact combined with the false explanation was, according to the Court of Appeals, not enough to prove age discrimination. But the Supreme Court was much more reluctant to overrule the jury's verdict. While acknowledging that a weak inference of discrimination combined with a false explanation will not always be sufficient to support a verdict against the employer, the Supreme Court made it clear that jury verdicts are entitled to great deference.

In virtually every employment discrimination case, the employer will offer an explanation for its termination decision and the employee will attack the explanation as being phony. The fundamental nature of employment discrimination litigation involves proving that the employer's asserted justification for firing an employee is just an attempt to cover up the real reason. Figuring out whether the employer is telling the truth is the first step that any jury must take. If the jury concludes that the employer is lying, figuring out the real reason is the next step. How the jury gets from point A, i.e., deciding that the employer is lying, to point B, deciding that the real reason was illegal discrimination, will often be a mystery. But once the jury comes back and says that the real reason was illegal discrimination, it will be a rare case where that determination can be overturned.

Evidence Needed to Support Termination

The Reeves case serves to highlight how important it is for employers to document their reasons for termination decisions. Employers must avoid asserting reasons that cannot be supported by verifiable facts. They should not be content to simply know the truth; they should think about how they are going to prove the truth beyond simply saying what they know to be true. Employment discrimination cases are won or lost, depending on whether a jury believes an employer's explanation for firing an employee.

It was never particularly easy to challenge the jury's verdict once the verdict was delivered. After Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Co., it will be almost impossible.

 

Keeley, Kuenn & Reid, a Chicago based law firm with government relations affiliates in Washington, D.C., is engaged in the practice of business law, commercial litigation, employment law, taxation, antitrust, product liability, estate planning and legislative matters. Through its affiliates, the firm also meets its clients' needs in protecting intellectual property rights and international commercial law matters.

Keeley, Kuenn & Reid 150 North Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 Tel. No. (312) 782-1829 Fax. No. (312) 782-4868 Web: http://www.kkrlaw.com