The Court Clarifies a Discrimination Plaintiff’s Evidentiary Burden in Order to Avoid Judgment

In 2000, the Supreme Court made a decision in a case called Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products. The decision helped make it easier for employees who believe they have been discriminated against to prove their case in court. This decision changed the way lower courts had been handling these cases and made it easier for employees to win discrimination cases. In Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., the Supreme Court clarified the standard of proof required for plaintiffs in employment discrimination cases. The Court ruled that a plaintiff can prove intentional discrimination by showing that the employer’s explanation for the adverse employment action is false. This means that a plaintiff does not always need additional evidence beyond their prima facie case and a showing that the employer’s reason is false. However, a plaintiff may still lose if the jury believes the employer’s false explanation was meant to cover up something other than discrimination. The Supreme Court reinstated the jury’s decision in favor of Reeves in an employment discrimination case. The Court also clarified the standard for ruling on a motion for judgment as a matter of law. This makes it easier for discrimination plaintiffs to prove their case. However, the Court missed the opportunity to provide further guidance on the use of “direct evidence” in these cases, which is disappointing. In the future, it may become harder for employers to get cases removed from a jury’s decision. Unless the case is very unusual, a plaintiff will be able to keep their case from being dismissed by showing enough evidence for a jury to reject the employer’s explanation for the discrimination and find that it’s just a cover-up. So, employers will try to make their cases fit into the category where a plaintiff needs more evidence to keep their case going. In the case of Reeves, the Supreme Court seemed to approve the jury instruction that in order to prove intentional discrimination, the jury must find that the employer’s explanation for the plaintiff’s discharge is false and that age discrimination was the real reason for it. However, there are different interpretations of what evidence is needed to prove discrimination, so it’s important to understand the legal framework and instructions given to the jury in employment discrimination cases.

Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/the-court-clarifies-a-discrimination-plaintiffs-evidentiary-burden-in-order-to-avoid-judgment-as-a/