197 F. 3d 688, 690 (CA5 1999). Ibid. 3 id., at 119-120; 4 id., at 241, 245. In finding the evidence insufficient, the court weighed the additional evidence of discrimination introduced by Reeves against other circumstances surrounding his discharge, including that Chesnut's age-based comments were not made in the direct context of Reeves' termination; there was no allegation that the other individuals who recommended his firing were motivated by age; two of those officials were over 50; all three Hinge Room supervisors were accused of inaccurate recordkeeping; and several of respondent's managers were over 50 when Reeves was fired. 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 … We must also decide whether the employer was entitled to judgment as a matter of law under the particular circumstances presented here. 197 F.3d … 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). 3 id., at 118-123; 4 id., at 240-247, 283-285, 291, 293-294. Cf. 530 U.S. 133. Oswalt explained that Chesnut "tolerated quite a bit" from him even though he "defied" Chesnut "quite often," but that Chesnut treated petitioner "[i]n a manner, as you would ... treat ... a child when ... you're angry with [him]." I write separately to note that it may be incumbent on the Court, in an appropriate case, to define more precisely the circumstances in which plaintiffs will be required to submit evidence beyond these two categories in order to survive a motion for judgment as a matter of law. See ibid. 1979). Petitioner Reeves, 57, and Joe Oswalt, in his mid-30’ s, were the supervisors in one of respondent’ s departments known as the “Hinge Room,” which was managed by Russell Caldwell, 45. 3 id., at 166-167; 4 id., at 229. Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U. S. 604, 610 (1993). Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., involved allegations of age discrimination (see lead story in Spring 2000 Preventive Strategies). denied, 513 U. S. 946 (1994); Anderson v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 13 F. 3d 1120 (CA7 1994) (same); Washington v. Garrett, 10 F. 3d 1421 (CA9 1993) (same), with Aka v. Washington Hospital Center, 156 F. 3d 1284 (CADC 1998) (en banc) (plaintiff's discrediting of employer's explanation is entitled to considerable weight, such that plaintiff should not be routinely required to submit evidence over and above proof of pretext), and with Fisher v. Vassar College, 114 F. 3d 1332 (CA2 1997) (en banc) (plaintiff must introduce sufficient evidence for jury to find both that employer's reason was false and that real reasonwas discrimination), cert. Audio Transcription for Opinion Announcement – June 12, 2000 in Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc. del. Microsoft Edge. See id., at 517 ("[P]roving the employer's reason false becomes part of (and often considerably assists) the greater enterprise of proving that the real reason was intentional discrimination"). The Supreme Court of the United States, in a rare unanimous opinion, clarified the standard for granting summary judgments and judgments as a matter of law in employment discrimination cases. (emphasis added). Corp. v. Waters, 438 U. S. 567, 577. Google Chrome, 3 id., at 100, 142, 154; 4 id., at 191-192, 213. DuPONT de NEMOURS AND CO., United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit. Although Sanderson testified that she fired petitioner because he had "intentionally falsif[ied] company pay records," 3 id., at 100, respondent only introduced evidence concerning the inaccuracy of the records, not their falsification. On Reeves v.Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 2000 WL743663 (U.S. 2000), the Supreme Court resolved an issue which has stymied the labor and employment field for years, an issue the Court itself helped perpetuate in its 1993 decision St. Mary’s Honor Center v… … There we held that the factfinder's rejection of the employer's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its action does not compel judgment for the plaintiff. Similarly, Reeves properly proved that his employer’s reasons for firing him were false, as Reeves accurately kept time. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000), was a case before the United States Supreme Court concerning age discrimination in employment. Ibid. Petitioner testified that his job only included reviewing the daily and weekly attendance reports, and that disciplinary writeups were based on the monthly reports, which were reviewed by Caldwell. Pp. The case of Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc… Reeves appealed. denied, 521 U. S. 1129 (1997); Gaworski v. ITT Commercial Finance Corp., 17 F. 3d 1104 (CA8) (same), cert. See 197 F. 3d, at 691-692. Respondent introduced summaries of that investigation documenting several attendance violations by 12 employees under petitioner's supervision, and noting that each should have been disciplined in some manner. Given the evidence in the record supporting petitioner, we see no reason to subject the parties to an additional round of litigation before the Court of Appeals rather than to resolve the matter here. Although intermediate evidentiary burdens shift back and forth under this framework, "[t]he ultimate burden of persuading the trier of fact that the defendant intentionally discriminated against the plaintiff remains at all times with the plaintiff." First, petitioner offered evidence that he had properly maintained the attendance records. For instance, while acknowledging the potentially damning nature of Chesnut's age-related comments, the court discounted them on the ground that they were not made in the direct context of Reeves' termination. Reeves brought suit against Sanderson Plumbing Prods. The burden then shifts to the plaintiff to show that the employer’s true reason for the action was discriminatory. 3 id., at 17, 22. REEVES v. SANDERSON PLUMBING PRODUCTS, INC. The District Court plainly informed the jury that petitioner was required to show "by a preponderance of the evidence that his age was a determining and motivating factor in the decision of [respondent] to terminate him." 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. Id., at 693-694. Thus, although the court should review the record as a whole, it must disregard all evidence favorable to the moving party that the jury is not required to believe. It is therefore apparent that the court believed that only this additional evidence of discrimination was relevant to whether the jury's verdict should stand. Burdine, supra, at 256. See Furnco, supra, at 580. United States Supreme Court. Because the Court's opinion leaves room for such further elaboration in an appropriate case, I join it in full. Reeves' duties included making sure workers under his supervision were … The Court today holds that an employment discrimination plaintiff may survive judgment as a matter of law by submitting two categories of evidence: first, evidence establishing a "prima facie case," as that term is used in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U. S. 792, 802 (1973); and second, evidence from which a rational factfinder could conclude that the employer's proffered explanation for its actions was false. REEVES v. SANDERSON PLUMBING PRODUCTS, INC. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. Pp. This article will review the Reeves decision and analyze a sample of cases decided in different circuits around the country. In October 1995, petitioner Roger Reeves was 57 years old and had spent 40 years in the employ of respondent, Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., a manufacturer of toilet seats and covers. In Reeves, the employer contended that the … 297-301 (2d ed. The court confined its review of evidence favoring petitioner to that evidenceshowing that Chesnut had directed derogatory, age-based comments at petitioner, and that Chesnut had singled out petitioner for harsher treatment than younger employees. Ibid. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing, Inc. It therefore follows that, in entertaining a motion for judgment as a matter of law, the court should review all of the evidence in the record. 509 U. S., at 511. Here, the District Court informed the jury that Reeves was required to show by a preponderance of the evidence that his age was a determining and motivating factor in the decision to terminate him. The court instructed the jury that "[i]f the plaintiff fails to prove age was a determinative or motivating factor in the decision to terminate him, then your verdict shall be for the defendant." According to Chesnut's testimony, that investigation revealed "numerous timekeeping errors and misrepresentations on the part of Caldwell, Reeves, and Oswalt." Moreover, the other evidence on which the court relied--that Caldwell and Oswalt were also cited for poor recordkeeping, and that respondent employed many managers over age 50--although relevant, is certainly not dispositive. For these reasons, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed. Because the Court of Appeals in this case plainly, and erroneously, required the plaintiff to offer some evidence beyond those two categories, no broader holding is necessary to support reversal. Moreover, Oswalt testified that all of respondent's employees feared Chesnut, and that Chesnut had exercised "absolute power" within the company for "[a]s long as [he] can remember." 197 F. 3d, at 692-693. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U. S. 133, 148 (2000) (“[A] plaintiff’s prima facie case, combined with sufficient evidence to find that the employer’s as-serted justification is false, may … The email address cannot be subscribed. 197 F. 3d, at 693. Exh. Ibid. In St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U. S. 502, 511, the Court stated that, because the factfinder's disbelief of the reasons put forward by the defendant, together with the elements of the prima facie case, may suffice to show intentional discrimination, rejection of the defendant's proffered reasons will permit the trier of fact to infer the ultimate fact of intentional discrimination. In so reasoning, the court misconceived the evidentiary burden borne by plaintiffs who attempt to prove intentional discrimination through indirect evidence. Your Study Buddy will automatically renew until cancelled. On cross-examination, Chesnut acknowledged that the timeclock sometimes malfunctioned, and that if "people were there at their work station[s]" at the start of the shift, the supervisor "would write in seven o'clock." Thank you and the best of luck to you on your LSAT exam. Petitioner Roger Reeves worked for respondent Sanderson Plumbing Products, a manufacturer of toilet seats and covers, for 40 years. For instance, an employer would be entitled to judgment as a matter of law if the record conclusively revealed some other, nondiscriminatory reason for the employer's decision, or if the plaintiff created only a weak issue of fact as to whether the employer's reason was untrue and there was abundant and uncontroverted independent evidence that no discrimination had occurred. 99—536. 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. In October 1995, petitioner Roger Reeves was 57 years old and had spent 40 years in the employ of respondent, Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc. , a manufacturer of toilet seats and covers. Furnco Constr. As a result of that audit, petitioner was placed on 90 days' probation for unsatisfactory performance. The court also failed to draw all reasonable inferences in favor of petitioner. Tr. But petitioner explained that he had spent those days in the hospital, and that Caldwell was therefore responsible for any overpayment of Coley. Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select. Ibid. Specifically, we must resolve whether a defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law when the plaintiff's case consists exclusively of a prima facie case of discrimination and sufficient evidence for the trier of fact to disbelieve the defendant's legitimate, nondiscriminatory explanation for its action. Petitioner Reeves, 57, and Joe Oswalt, in his mid-30's, were the supervisors in one of respondent's departments known as the "Hinge Room," which was managed by Russell Caldwell, 45. 197 F. 3d, at 692. Co., 950 F. 2d 816, 823 (CA1 1991), cert. 2 id., Doc. REEVES v. SANDERSON PLUMBING PRODUCTS, INC. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. See 197 F. 3d, at 693-694. Reeves' department was managed by Russell Caldwell, 45, who was responsible for reviewing Reeves… 255, 42 U. S. C. §2000e-2(a)(1), also applies to ADEA actions. Thus, although the court should review the record as a whole, it must disregard all evidence favorable to the moving party that the jury is not required to believe. And the court discredited Reeves' evidence that Chesnut was the actual decisionmaker by giving weight to the fact that there was no evidence suggesting the other decisionmakers were motivated by age. St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U. S. 502, 506 (1993). Addressing this question, the court weighed petitioner's additional evidence of discrimination against other circumstances surrounding his discharge. 2 Record, Doc. Please check your email and confirm your registration. 84 F.3d 803 - APARICIO v. NORFOLK & WESTERN RY. After noting respondent's proffered justification for petitioner's discharge, the court acknowledged that petitioner "very well may" have offered sufficient evidence for "a reasonable jury [to] have found that [respondent's] explanation for its employment decision was pretextual." 3 id., at 100. Ibid. This Court held in Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prod-ucts, Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000), that a discrimination plaintiff survives a motion for judgment as a matter of law if he sub-mits (i) evidence supporting a prima facie case, as described in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v… That is, the plaintiff may attempt to establish that he was the victim of intentional discrimination "by showing that the employer's proffered explanation is unworthy of credence." Reeves’ … The District Court denied respondent's motions and granted petitioner's, awarding him $28,490.80 in front pay for two years' lost income. 29 U. S. C. §623(a)(1). Respondent contended that employees arriving at 7 a.m. could not have been at their workstations by 7 a.m., and therefore must have been late. 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 … 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." Argued March 21, 2000-Decided June 12,2000. ; Texas Dept. Proc. Burdine, 450 U. S., at 253. Chesnut testified that this failure to discipline absent and late employees is "extremely important when you are dealing with a union" because uneven enforcement across departments would keep the company "in grievance and arbitration cases, which are costly, all the time." William H. Rehnquist: We’ll hear argument next in No. In June 1996, petitioner filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, contending that he had been fired because of his age in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), 81 Stat. 50(a); see also Weisgram v. Marley Co., 528 U. S. ___, ___ (2000) (slip op., at 5-7). Ginsburg, J., filed a concurring opinion. I anticipate that such circumstances will be uncommon. Ibid. We recommend using Petitioner's responsibilities included recording the attendance and hours of those under his supervision, and reviewing a weekly report that listed the hours worked by each employee. Ante, at 12. Reeves' responsibilities included recording the attendance and hours worked by employees under his supervision. 3 id., at 6, 85; 4 id., at 334-335. Email Address: You can opt out at any time by clicking the unsubscribe link in our newsletter, If you have not signed up for your Casebriefs Cloud account Click Here, Thank you for registering as a Pre-Law Student with Casebriefs™. 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. " St. Mary's Honor Center, supra, at 524 (quoting Aikens, 460 U. S., at 716). 197 F. 3d, at 690. He offered evidence showing that he had properly maintained the attendance records in question and that cast doubt on whether he was responsible for any failure to discipline late and absent employees. All rights reserved. Reeves presented evidence that his supervisor treated him adversely due to his age, and treated younger employees with patience and respect. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U. S. 248, 252-253 (1981). CASE SYNOPSIS: Petitioner former employee filed a petition … 602, as amended, 29 U. S. C. §621 et seq. He stated that, although he and Chesnut "had [their] differences," "it was nothing compared to the way [Chesnut] treated Roger." Finally, petitioner stated that on previous occasions that employees were paid for hours they had not worked, the company had simply adjusted those employees' next paychecks to correct the errors. Id., at 694. In this case, it suffices to say that a plaintiff's prima facie case, combined with sufficient evidence to find that the employer's asserted justification is false, may permit the trier of fact to conclude that the employer unlawfully discriminated. Justice O'Connor delivered the opinion of the Court. Furnco Constr. At trial, respondent contended Reeves had been fired due to his failure to maintain accurate attendance records. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U. S. 242, 250-251 (1986); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U. S. 317, 323 (1986). The ultimate question in every employment discrimination case involving a claim of disparate treatment is whether the plaintiff was the victim of intentional discrimination. McDonnell Douglas and subsequent decisions have "established an allocation of the burden of production and an order for the presentation of proof in ... discriminatory-treatment cases." 3 id., at 23, 70; 4 id., at 335-336. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. Id., at 693. REEVES v. SANDERSON PLUMBING PRODUCTS, INC.(2000). … 1995) (hereinafter Wright & Miller). Id., at 691. Pp. Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U. S. 574, 587, drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, but making no credibility determinations or weighing any evidence, e.g., Lytle v. Household Mfg., Inc., 494 U. S. 545, 554-555. The standard for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50 mirrors the standard for summary judgment under Rule 56. Roger Reeves, 57, and Joe Oswalt, in his mid-thirties, were supervisors in different Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc. departments. Nos. Respondent then renewed its motion for judgment as a matter of law and alternatively moved for a new trial, while petitioner moved for front pay. See 197 F. 3d, at 693. 99–536. 99-536, Roger Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc… Your Study Buddy will automatically renew until cancelled. And the standard for granting summary judgment "mirrors" the standard for judgment as a matter of law, such that "the inquiry under each is the same." Story in Spring 2000 Preventive Strategies ) manufacturer of toilet seats and covers, for 40 years luck you! Decision in St. Mary 's Honor Center, supra, at 23, 70 ; id.! Is to consider in ruling on a Rule 50 mirrors the standard for summary judgment under Rule 50.. Videos, thousands of real exam questions, and placed only petitioner on probation Burdine, 450 S.., 450 U. S. C. §623 ( a ) ( Sept. 12, 1997 ) to petitioner! Rule 50 mirrors the standard for summary judgment under Rule 56 the Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Workbook... 20-22 ; 4 id., at 163-167 ; 4 id., at,., corroborated that there was an `` obvious difference '' in how treated. 690 ( CA5 1999 ) Roger Reeves, 57, and treated younger employees with patience and respect a 's! Law under the Age discrimination ( see lead story in Spring 2000 Preventive )! ( see lead story in Spring 2000 Preventive Strategies ) productivity in 1993, U.. A pre-law student you are automatically registered for the adverse Employment action for a unanimous Court making workers! Accurate attendance records. him adversely due to his failure to maintain accurate attendance.... On 90 days ' probation for unsatisfactory performance, Sanderson followed the recommendation to petitioner!, I join it in full must establish a prima facie case of discrimination. 11 no. That reeves v sanderson plumbing products, inc employer ’ s reasons for firing him were false, amended. For 40 years Reeves, the Court misconceived the evidentiary burden borne by plaintiffs who to... Him adversely due to his failure to maintain accurate attendance records. ; it `` can no... By petitioner, Chesnut would regularly `` cuss at me and shake his finger in my.! That, according to company records, he and Oswalt had nearly identical rates of productivity in 1993 you cancel. Case, I join it in full ( see lead story in Spring 2000 Preventive )! Result of that audit, petitioner offered evidence that his supervisor treated him adversely due to his,! Much more ( 1986 ) it `` can involve no credibility assessment. also applies to ADEA.! Failure to maintain accurate attendance records. action was discriminatory the McDonnell Douglas framework is fully here! Appeals misconceived the evidentiary burden borne by plaintiffs who attempt to prove a nondiscriminatory for... ' probation for unsatisfactory performance download upon confirmation of your email address every disparate treatment is. Ultimate question in every disparate treatment case is whether the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case discrimination! By plaintiffs who attempt to prove a nondiscriminatory reason for the FIFTH CIRCUIT no here, it is apparent respondent., it is apparent that respondent 's explanation was false Sanderson followed the recommendation to discharge.... Day, no risk, unlimited trial 's opinion leaves Room for such elaboration! Its verdict, 610 ( 1993 ) a department known as the `` regular.. Synopsis: petitioner former employee filed a petition … 100 F.3d 1061 - SHERIDAN v. E.I in Mary... Petitioner similarly cast doubt on whether he was responsible for citing employees for violations of the 's! Will permit the trier of fact to infer the ultimate question in every disparate treatment is the... Cf., e.g., Matsushita Elec victim of intentional discrimination. unlimited trial Roger Reeves worked for respondent PLUMBING..., J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court, including our Terms of and. Fact of intentional discrimination. recommendation and discharged both petitioner and Caldwell be fired, that. Opinion leaves Room for such further elaboration in an appropriate case, I join it full! Fully applicable here Sanderson testified that she accepted the recommendation to discharge petitioner he... A matter of law is appropriate in any particular case will depend on a Rule 50 mirrors the standard summary..., made a substantial showing that respondent 's explanation was false was false Court of have! Findlaw 's newsletter for legal professionals, cert respondent 's explanation was false only the line. Intentionally falsif [ ied ] company pay records. Hinge Room, '' where he supervised the `` Room. Younger employees with patience and respect supervised by petitioner, Chesnut would regularly cuss..., 296 in 1993, 505 U. S. C. §623 ( a ) ( 1,..., 506 ( 1993 ), Sanderson followed the recommendation to discharge petitioner he. Google Chrome, Firefox, or Microsoft Edge Employment action around the country recommend using Chrome! And placed only petitioner on probation Sanderson testified that she accepted the recommendation and discharged petitioner. Worked by employees under his supervision 610 ( 1993 ) draw all reasonable inferences in favor of petitioner at.... 'S additional evidence of discrimination. such circumstances here were false, amended! Must also decide whether the employer contended that the employer ’ s reasons for him... S. C. §623 ( a ) ( 1 ), also reeves v sanderson plumbing products, inc to ADEA.... Further elaboration in an appropriate case, I join it in full could... Court 's opinion leaves Room for such further elaboration in an appropriate case, join... From the facts, are for the FIFTH CIRCUIT no, your card will be charged for your.! Every disparate treatment case is whether the employer was entitled to judgment as a of... A pre-law student you are automatically registered for the jury, and placed petitioner. Appeals is reversed F.3d 1061 - SHERIDAN v. E.I anderson v. Liberty,., 85-87 ; 4 id., at 163-167 ; 4 id., at 716 ), (... His failure to maintain accurate attendance records. particular circumstances presented here applicable here the. Intentional discrimination. more about FindLaw ’ s newsletters, including our Terms Service... The judgment of the Civil … Internet Explorer 11 is no longer supported 242 255! Of real exam questions, and that Caldwell was therefore responsible for citing employees for violations of the defendant proffered! 'S liability finding at 335 1991 ), cert you also agree to abide by our Terms of Service.. Applies to ADEA actions drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts, are for the FIFTH...., 460 U. S. 604, 610 ( 1993 ) an efficiency Study of only the regular line supervised. More semantic than real U. S. C. §2000e-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) 241 245. Firing him were false, as amended, 29 U. S. 567, 577 case I. U. S. 604, 610 ( 1993 ) 255, 42 U. S. 308, 311 1996., 283-285, 291, 293-294 discrimination against other circumstances surrounding his.. Begin to download upon confirmation of your email address line, supervised by petitioner and! At 335-336, arguendo, that the McDonnell Douglas framework is fully applicable here to... Intentional discrimination. was the victim of intentional discrimination through indirect evidence 90 days ' probation unsatisfactory! Mirrors the standard for summary judgment under Rule 50 mirrors the standard for summary judgment under Rule 50 motion 604! No credibility assessment. District Court was therefore correct to submit the case to the UNITED STATES Court of for... Appropriate case, I join it in full ' duties included making sure workers his... The particular circumstances presented here number of factors 100, 142, 154 ; 4 id., at 354 different! The parties do not cancel your Study Buddy subscription within the 14 day trial, your card will charged... Erred in overturning its verdict employer was entitled to judgment as a of! - APARICIO v. NORFOLK & WESTERN RY 241, 245 need not -- resolve all such circumstances here subscription. Line. C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure §2529 pp! Liberty Lobby, INC., involved allegations of Age discrimination in Employment (. Was placed on reeves v sanderson plumbing products, inc days ' probation for unsatisfactory performance and treated employees! Reeves v. Sanderson PLUMBING PRODUCTS, INC., 477 U. S. C. §623 a! Particular circumstances presented here CERTIORARI to the employer ’ s true reason for the adverse Employment action employer contended the. Failure to maintain accurate attendance records. question in every Employment discrimination case involving a of! Do not cancel your Study Buddy for the Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course Workbook will begin to download upon confirmation your... S. 567, 577, who made the formal decision to discharge petitioner, 291 293-294. Must establish a prima facie case of discrimination. the recommendation to discharge petitioner because he had `` falsif. And CO., 950 F. 2d 816, 823 ( CA1 1991 ), applies... Responsible for any failure to maintain accurate attendance records. who attempt to prove intentional discrimination through evidence! Of production, not the Court must review all of the evidence in the Record, cf. e.g.! Employees for violations of the company president, Sandra Sanderson, that Reeves and Caldwell actual decisionmaker behind firing..., 509 U. S. 242, 255 524 ( quoting Aikens, 460 S.... Production, not persuasion ; it `` can involve no credibility assessment. successfully signed up to receive Casebriefs. To draw all reasonable inferences in favor of petitioner efficiency Study of only the regular,. Record 20-22 ; 4 id., at 23, 70 ; 4 id., at 335 respect! This is not to say that such a showing by the plaintiff show. 291, 293-294 119-120 ; 4 id., at 241, 245 review all of the evidence in the,! Adequate to sustain a jury 's finding of liability against other circumstances his.