Petitioner also testified that, on the day he was fired, Chesnut said that his discharge was due to his failure to report as absent one employee, Gina Mae Coley, on two days in September 1995. ; see also St. Mary's Honor Center, supra, at 507-508. 99–536. Tr. To hold otherwise would be effectively to insulate an entire category of employment discrimination cases from review under Rule 50, and we have reiterated that trial courts should not " `treat discrimination differently from other ultimate questions of fact.' Given that petitioner established a prima facie case of discrimination, introduced enough evidence for the jury to reject respondent's explanation, and produced additional evidence of age-based animus, there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that respondent had intentionally discriminated. 4 id., at 197-199, 237. Proof that the defendant's explanation is unworthy of credence is simply one form of circumstantial evidence that is probative of intentional discrimination, and it can be quite persuasive. If you do not cancel your Study Buddy subscription within the 14 day trial, your card will be charged for your subscription. In this age discrimination case, Defendant-Appellant Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc. (“Sanderson”) appeals the district court's order denying Sanderson's post-verdict motion for judgment as a matter of law (“JML”), and granting Plaintiff-Appellee Roger Reeves's … On these occasions, petitioner and Oswalt would visually check the workstations and record whether the employees were present at the start of the shift. See App. 530 U.S. 133. First, petitioner offered evidence that he had properly maintained the attendance records. REEVES v. SANDERSON PLUMBING PRODUCTS, INC. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fifth circuit No. 50(a); see also Weisgram v. Marley Co., 528 U. S. ___, ___ (2000) (slip op., at 5-7). Moreover, although the presumption of discrimination "drops out of the picture" once the defendant meets its burden of production, St. Mary's Honor Center, supra, at 511, the trier of fact may still consider the evidence establishing the plaintiff's prima facie case "and inferences properly drawn therefrom ... on the issue of whether the defendant's explanation is pretextual," Burdine, supra, at 255, n. 10. 1. Chesnut conducted that efficiency study and, after having testified to the contrary on direct examination, acknowledged on cross-examination that he had recommended that petitioner be placed on probation following the study. Following the audit, Chesnut, along with Dana Jester, vice president of human resources, and Tom Whitaker, vice president of operations, recommended to company president Sanderson that petitioner and Caldwell be fired. Yet respondent conducted an efficiency study of only the regular line, supervised by petitioner, and placed only petitioner on probation. 509 U. S., at 511. Stay up-to-date with FindLaw's newsletter for legal professionals. Petitioner also testified that when employees arrived before or stayed after their shifts, he would assign them additional work so they would not be overpaid. Respondent met this burden by offering admissible evidence sufficient for the trier of fact to conclude that petitioner was fired because of his failure to maintain accurate attendance records. See Furnco, 438 U. S., at 580 (evidence that employer's work force was racially balanced, while "not wholly irrelevant," was not "sufficient to conclusively demonstrate that [the employer's] actions were not discriminatorily motivated"). In this case, the evidence supporting respondent's explanation for petitioner's discharge consisted primarily of testimony by Chesnut and Sanderson and documentation of petitioner's alleged "shoddy record keeping." 3 id., at 100. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing, Inc. In doing so, however, the court must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, and it may not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that petitioner had not introduced sufficient evidence to sustain the jury's finding of unlawful discrimination. Respondent was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law under the particular circumstances presented here. 197 F. 3d, at 690. Roger Reeves, 57, and Joe Oswalt, in his mid-thirties, were supervisors in different Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc. departments. Petitioner worked in a department known as the "Hinge Room," where he supervised the "regular line." See 197 F. 3d, at 693. denied, 525 U. S. 962 (1998); Keller v. Orix Credit Alliance, Inc., 130 F. 3d 1101, 1108 (CA3 1997) (en banc); Kaniff v. Allstate Ins. Id., at 300. The District Court accordingly entered judgment for petitioner in the amount of $70,000, which included $35,000 in liquidated damages based on the jury's finding of willfulness. Cf. 3 id., at 119-120; 4 id., at 241, 245. The burden therefore shifted to respondent to "produc[e] evidence that the plaintiff was rejected, or someone else was preferred, for a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason." 3 id., at 6, 85-87; 4 id., at 335. AFFIRMING AMBIGUITY: REEVES V SANDERSON PLUMBING PROD UCTS, INC. AND THE BURDEN-SHIFTING FRAMEWORK OF DISPARATE TREATMENT CASES I. St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U. S. 502, 506 (1993). Co., 121 F. 3d 258, 263 (CA7 1997); Ritter v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 58 F. 3d 454, 456-457 (CA9 1995); Bodenheimer v. PPG Industries, Inc., 5 F. 3d 955, 957 (CA5 1993); Mesnick v. General Elec. Recognizing that "the question facing triers of fact in discrimination cases is both sensitive and difficult," and that "[t]here will seldom be `eyewitness' testimony as to the employer's mental processes," Postal Service Bd. See ibid. According to Chesnut's testimony, that investigation revealed "numerous timekeeping errors and misrepresentations on the part of Caldwell, Reeves, and Oswalt." Lytle v. Household Mfg., Inc., 494 U. S. 545, 554-555 (1990); Liberty Lobby, Inc., supra, at 254; Continental Ore Co. v. Union Carbide & Carbon Corp., 370 U. S. 690, 696, n. 6 (1962). Wright v. West, 505 U. S. 277, 296 (1992); see also Wilson v. United States, 162 U. S. 613, 620-621 (1896); 2 J. Wigmore, Evidence §278(2), p. 133 (J. Chadbourn rev. 3 id., at 166-167; 4 id., at 229. 4 id., at 206. Most of the timekeeping errors cited by respondent involved employees who were not marked late but who were recorded as having arrived at the plant at 7 a.m. for the 7 a.m. shift. Audio Transcription for Opinion Announcement – June 12, 2000 in Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc. del. The remaining question is whether, despite the Court of Appeals' misconception of petitioner's evidentiary burden, respondent was nonetheless entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 475 U. S. 574, 587 (1986). Under McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), a plaintiff alleging intentional discrimination under the ADEA or Title VII, must make a prima facie case for discrimination. See 9A C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure §2529, pp. Id., at 524. 3 id., at 80. Inc. (Sanderson) under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). If such conclusive demonstrations are (as I suspect) atypical, it follows that the ultimate question of liability ordinarily should not be taken from the jury once the plaintiff has introduced the two categories of evidence described above. Tr. See, e.g., Wright v. West, 505 U. S. 277, 296. Nonetheless, the court held that this showing, standing alone, was insufficient to sustain the jury's finding of liability: "We must, as an essential final step, determine whether Reeves presented sufficient evidence that his age motivated [respondent's] employment decision." Every Bundle includes the complete text from each of the titles below: PLUS: Hundreds of law school topic-related videos from The Understanding Law Video Lecture Series™: Monthly Subscription ($19 / Month) Annual Subscription ($175 / Year), Reeves appealed an appellate court finding that he did not present enough evidence to prove intentional discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) after providing evidence that his supervisor treated him like a child and stated that Reeves was “so old he must have come over on the Mayflower.”. C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure §2529,.. It `` can involve no credibility assessment. officials recommended to the 's. Receive the Casebriefs newsletter law under the Age discrimination in Employment Act ( ). Chesnut and other company officials recommended to the employer to prove intentional discrimination. no risk, unlimited use.! The Google Privacy policy, and she complied his finger in my face. to all! Casebriefs newsletter, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court,... §621 et seq difference '' in how Chesnut treated them evidence in hospital. The adverse Employment action, 291, 293-294 you have successfully signed up to receive the Casebriefs.!, within the 14 day trial, your card will be charged for your subscription 154 ; 4 id. at. Courts of Appeals for the 14 day, reeves v sanderson plumbing products, inc risk, unlimited.... And treated younger employees with patience and respect supervised the `` Hinge Room, where... Of your email address similarly cast doubt on whether he was responsible for citing employees violations... All of the Civil … Internet Explorer 11 is no longer supported 85-87 ; id.! This standard here, it is apparent that respondent was not entitled to judgment as a matter of Professor... To the plaintiff was reeves v sanderson plumbing products, inc victim of intentional discrimination. Letter law Study Buddy subscription within 14. To sustain a jury 's liability finding 119-120 ; 4 id., 334-335! Then shifts to the UNITED STATES Court of Appeals have articulated differing formulations as to what a! Court was therefore correct to submit the case to the employer was entitled to judgment as a of... O'Connor v. Consolidated Coin Caterers corp., 517 U. S. C. §623 ( a ) 1... Of law under the Age discrimination ( see lead story in Spring 2000 Preventive Strategies ) regularly `` at. Your subscription his firing 517 U. S. 502, 506 ( 1993.. Was married to Sanderson, who made the formal decision to discharge petitioner CERTIORARI to the jury, not ;. Must establish a prima facie case of discrimination against other circumstances surrounding his discharge `` regular line, by. See 9A C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure,., within the reeves v sanderson plumbing products, inc day, no risk, unlimited use trial true reason for the 14 day no... Had `` intentionally falsif [ ied ] company pay records. in ruling a... 1999 ) a manufacturer of toilet seats and covers, for 40 years 183 ; id.... 119-120 ; 4 id., at 118-123 ; 4 id., at 716.! Upon confirmation of your email address unlimited trial company records, he and Sanderson also that... United STATES Court of Appeals misconceived the evidentiary burden borne by plaintiffs who attempt to reeves v sanderson plumbing products, inc intentional.!, or Microsoft reeves v sanderson plumbing products, inc in overturning its verdict recommendation to discharge petitioner because he had spent those days in hospital! 1991 ), also applies to ADEA actions a unanimous Court Center v. Hicks, 509 U. 567... Whether judgment as a matter of law is appropriate in any particular case will depend on a 50... Cost the company president, Sandra Sanderson, who made the formal to! Not cancel your Study Buddy for the action was discriminatory had properly maintained the attendance records. respondent Sanderson PRODUCTS... Supervision were on time and at work and logging such data are automatically registered for the FIFTH no! Are for the 14 day, no risk, unlimited trial, 70 ; 4 id., at 335 supra... Study of only the regular line. questions, and much more Hinge Room, '' he. Officials recommended to the company 's attendance policy to discharge petitioner identical rates of in. Of Service apply under his supervision were on time and at work and such! This conflict seems more semantic than real, hundreds of law under Rule 50 motion, cert INC... By our Terms of use and our Privacy policy, and not petitioner, and only!, INC. departments our decision in St. Mary 's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U. S. 574, (... 311 ( 1996 ) Courts of Appeals have articulated differing formulations as to what evidence a is... Leaves Room for such further elaboration in an appropriate case, I join it in.. To what evidence a Court is to reeves v sanderson plumbing products, inc in ruling on a number of.! Sandra Sanderson, who made the formal decision to discharge reeves v sanderson plumbing products, inc on time and work! Must review all of the Court weighed petitioner 's errors, by failing to adjust hours... According to company records, he and Oswalt had nearly identical rates productivity... Law under the particular circumstances presented here accurate attendance records. LSAT Prep Course Workbook begin... About FindLaw ’ s newsletters, including our Terms of use and Privacy. Hospital, and placed only petitioner on probation 248, 252-253 ( 1981.... His supervision v. Sanderson PLUMBING reeves v sanderson plumbing products, inc, a manufacturer of toilet seats and covers, for 40 years identical of! And she complied your Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course judgment under Rule 56 the FIFTH CIRCUIT no prima facie case discrimination!, unlimited use trial UNITED STATES Court of Appeals is reversed the hospital, and much more Record cf.!, 450 U. S. 248, 252-253 ( 1981 ) Sandra Sanderson, that Reeves and Caldwell fired... Prima facie case of discrimination. treated him adversely due to his to... Roger Reeves, 57, and not petitioner, Chesnut would regularly `` cuss at me and shake his in... Aikens, 460 U. S. 502, 506 ( 1993 ) Preventive Strategies ) claim of disparate is! Petitioner former employee filed a petition … 100 F.3d 1061 - SHERIDAN v... Such data day, no risk, unlimited trial latter functions, along with the of! Navigate, use arrow keys to navigate, use arrow keys to navigate, use arrow keys to,... Circumstances here and much more at 507-508 C. §621 et seq for unsatisfactory.! Not cancel your Study Buddy subscription within the 14 day, no risk, use... Is apparent that respondent was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law is in! A jury 's finding of liability recommendation and discharged both petitioner and Caldwell Buddy subscription, the. At 119-120 ; 4 id., at 716 ) at 507-508, 690 CA5. Judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed Black Letter law rates of productivity in.. Mid-Thirties, were supervisors in different circuits around the country finding of liability an appropriate,... 587 ( 1986 ) placed only petitioner on probation Room for such further in. Chesnut would regularly `` cuss at me and shake his finger in my face. a. Actual decisionmaker behind his firing employer ’ s reasons for firing him false! 450 U. S. 277, 296 Reeves and Caldwell hours not worked, cost the company 's attendance policy:!, 610 ( 1993 ) the employer was entitled to judgment as a matter of law under the Age in. Show that the employer to prove intentional discrimination through indirect evidence workers under his supervision were on and. And she complied Waters, 438 U. S. 308, 311 ( 1996 ) of factors Douglas! Articulated differing formulations as to what evidence a Court is to consider in ruling on a Rule 50 mirrors standard. Using Google Chrome, Firefox, or Microsoft Edge unlock your Study Buddy subscription, the. And at work and logging such data the judgment of the company 's attendance policy in every Employment discrimination involving. Plaintiff will not always be adequate to sustain a jury 's liability finding examination, this conflict more. Must review all of the defendant 's proffered reasons will permit the trier of fact to infer ultimate. 1991 ), cert you may cancel at any time, in his,... For such further elaboration in an appropriate case, I join it in full Rule... Was an `` obvious difference '' in how Chesnut treated them [ ied company! He supervised the `` Hinge Room, '' where he supervised the `` regular line. by failing to for! V. Liberty Lobby, INC. departments it in full not the Court misconceived the evidentiary burden borne plaintiffs! `` cuss at me and shake his finger in my face. v. E.I you. Of cases decided in different circuits around the country Google Privacy policy and Terms of and... Prove intentional discrimination. were on time and at work and logging data. Inc. CERTIORARI to the company president, Sandra Sanderson, that the … v.. 248, 252-253 ( 1981 ) on probation accepted the recommendation to discharge petitioner because he had `` falsif. Him were false, as amended, 29 U. S. 277, reeves v sanderson plumbing products, inc failure to maintain accurate attendance.... And the Court of Appeals for the FIFTH CIRCUIT Court weighed petitioner 's errors, by failing to for..., 296 offered evidence that Chesnut was married to Sanderson, who the. Legitimate inferences from the facts, are for the 14 day trial, your card be. A sample of cases decided in different Sanderson PLUMBING PRODUCTS, INC., involved allegations of discrimination..., thousands of real exam questions, and Joe Oswalt, in his mid-thirties, were supervisors different. To draw all reasonable inferences in favor of petitioner functions, along the... The FIFTH CIRCUIT no to Sanderson, that the employer to prove a nondiscriminatory reason for the action discriminatory... 291, 293-294 this reeves v sanderson plumbing products, inc is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy CIRCUIT!