In U.S., Jurors Likely to Hear More Discrimination Claims
“The United States Supreme Court has issued what is likely to be the most important employment discrimination ruling of the past seven years,” reports Chicago Lawyer magazine. In Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, the justices unanimously ruled that employees can prove they are victims of age discrimination by showing that the reason the employer gives for their firing is false and that the likely alternative explanation for the firing is discrimination. “In appropriate circumstances, the trier of fact can infer from the falsity of the explanation that the employer is dissembling to cover up a discriminatory purpose,” Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote.
The high court’s decision will probably affect all types of employment-discrimination cases -- age, race, sex, national origin and disability, Business Insurance magazine says. As a result of the decision, employees may find it easier to get their cases before a jury and, once they do, easier to prove they were victims of discrimination. In this case, brought under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Supreme Court reinstated damages totaling nearly $100,000 that a federal district court jury had awarded a Mississippi man who claimed that age discrimination had cost him his job. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had stripped Roger Reeves of the judgment, saying he had not proven that discrimination caused his firing, but the Supreme Court disagreed.
Prior to this ruling, the federal appeals courts had split about the kind of evidence an employee needed to prove age discrimination. Some appeals courts had set a very demanding “pretext-plus” standard, which said that it was not enough to prove an employer was giving a false reason for firing or not promoting an employee. These courts demanded additional, positive proof of a discriminatory motive, something that is often difficult to produce. The Supreme Court decision rejects that standard.
According to the Supreme Court ruling, Reeves, a manager at a plumbing supply manufacturing plant, first showed that he had a prima facie age-discrimination case. His employer claimed that Reeves was fired for keeping inaccurate records of his subordinates’ work hours, but Reeves showed that the claim was untrue. He and a fellow employee also testified that Reeves had been subjected to comments about his age, such as statements that he was “so old he must have come over on the Mayflower” and that he was “too damn old to do the job.” These were not made in the context of his firing nor by the person who fired him, but the Supreme Court found the evidence sufficient to prove age discrimination.
The Reeves decision makes equitable and consistent policies for progressive discipline and terminations more important than ever, according to Paul Falcone, writing in the August 2000 issue of HRfocus. He suggests following these four rules of workplace discipline: the employee must know the problem, know what to do to correct it, have a reasonable period of time to correct it and understand the consequences of inaction.
Documentation, training and complete honesty can help stop job-discrimination lawsuits before they start, suggest employment lawyers cited by hr-esource. They suggest establishing best practices for terminations or disciplinary actions and making sure everyone in the company uses them. They also recommend that managers make sure the reasons for termination or disciplinary action are legal, appear in writing, and are clear to everyone, including the worker in question. Do not use “white lies” to spare an employee’s feelings when the employee is terminated, because they may help that worker win a discrimination suit. The truth or falsity of the employer’s evidence will now decide more cases, so the quality and credibility of the employer’s witnesses are very important.
====================================================
The text of the Supreme Court decision in Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products is available at
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-536.ZS.html
Workforce magazine online examines a variety of court decisions in age-discrimination lawsuits, including Reeves, to see what they mean to employers. An article by Daniel M. Sak, "Age Discrimination Lawsuits Shouldn't Stop You from Managing Your Workforce," also provides many links for those who want to examine the issues in more depth. See
http://www.workforce.com/feature/00/05/21
For tips on how to avoid a discrimination lawsuit in light of the Supreme Court ruling, see the advice from attorney Peter Petesch. His firm filed a "friend of the court" brief for the employer on behalf of the Society for Human Resource Management in the Reeves case. The information is in HR Briefing at
http://www.bbpnews.com/hr/fep_23.shtml
The high court’s decision will probably affect all types of employment-discrimination cases -- age, race, sex, national origin and disability, Business Insurance magazine says. As a result of the decision, employees may find it easier to get their cases before a jury and, once they do, easier to prove they were victims of discrimination. In this case, brought under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Supreme Court reinstated damages totaling nearly $100,000 that a federal district court jury had awarded a Mississippi man who claimed that age discrimination had cost him his job. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had stripped Roger Reeves of the judgment, saying he had not proven that discrimination caused his firing, but the Supreme Court disagreed.
Prior to this ruling, the federal appeals courts had split about the kind of evidence an employee needed to prove age discrimination. Some appeals courts had set a very demanding “pretext-plus” standard, which said that it was not enough to prove an employer was giving a false reason for firing or not promoting an employee. These courts demanded additional, positive proof of a discriminatory motive, something that is often difficult to produce. The Supreme Court decision rejects that standard.
According to the Supreme Court ruling, Reeves, a manager at a plumbing supply manufacturing plant, first showed that he had a prima facie age-discrimination case. His employer claimed that Reeves was fired for keeping inaccurate records of his subordinates’ work hours, but Reeves showed that the claim was untrue. He and a fellow employee also testified that Reeves had been subjected to comments about his age, such as statements that he was “so old he must have come over on the Mayflower” and that he was “too damn old to do the job.” These were not made in the context of his firing nor by the person who fired him, but the Supreme Court found the evidence sufficient to prove age discrimination.
The Reeves decision makes equitable and consistent policies for progressive discipline and terminations more important than ever, according to Paul Falcone, writing in the August 2000 issue of HRfocus. He suggests following these four rules of workplace discipline: the employee must know the problem, know what to do to correct it, have a reasonable period of time to correct it and understand the consequences of inaction.
Documentation, training and complete honesty can help stop job-discrimination lawsuits before they start, suggest employment lawyers cited by hr-esource. They suggest establishing best practices for terminations or disciplinary actions and making sure everyone in the company uses them. They also recommend that managers make sure the reasons for termination or disciplinary action are legal, appear in writing, and are clear to everyone, including the worker in question. Do not use “white lies” to spare an employee’s feelings when the employee is terminated, because they may help that worker win a discrimination suit. The truth or falsity of the employer’s evidence will now decide more cases, so the quality and credibility of the employer’s witnesses are very important.
====================================================
The text of the Supreme Court decision in Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products is available at
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-536.ZS.html
Workforce magazine online examines a variety of court decisions in age-discrimination lawsuits, including Reeves, to see what they mean to employers. An article by Daniel M. Sak, "Age Discrimination Lawsuits Shouldn't Stop You from Managing Your Workforce," also provides many links for those who want to examine the issues in more depth. See
http://www.workforce.com/feature/00/05/21
For tips on how to avoid a discrimination lawsuit in light of the Supreme Court ruling, see the advice from attorney Peter Petesch. His firm filed a "friend of the court" brief for the employer on behalf of the Society for Human Resource Management in the Reeves case. The information is in HR Briefing at
http://www.bbpnews.com/hr/fep_23.shtml