Equity & Diversity

High Court Lowers Bar for Employees In Discrimination Suits

By Mark Walsh — June 21, 2000 1 min read
  • Save to favorites
  • Print

The U.S. Supreme Court made it easier last week for workers to win employment-discrimination lawsuits by ruling that they usually will not need additional, independent evidence of bias when their employers’ stated reason for an adverse job action is shown to be false.

Many lower federal courts had required further evidence of actual discrimination even when plaintiffs had proved their employers’ explanations for dismissals or other job actions to be pretexts. But in its unanimous June 12 ruling in Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products Inc. (Case No. 99-536), the Supreme Court rejected the evidentiary standard known as “pretext plus.”

While the case involved the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, legal experts said the court’s ruling would also apply to race- and sex-discrimination lawsuits filed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as to job-bias cases brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

As large employers, school districts are sued often under those federal laws, particularly under Title VII.

Performance Questioned

The ruling came in the case of Roger Reeves, a supervisor for a plumbing-supplies manufacturer who was 57 years old in 1995 when he was dismissed and replaced by a younger worker. He sued under the age- discrimination law, arguing that the company’s stated reason for his dismissal— that he kept inaccurate attendance records—was a pretext for age bias.

After introducing evidence that he had kept accurate records and that some of his superiors had made age-based remarks about him, a jury awarded Mr. Reeves nearly $100,000 in damages. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, in New Orleans, overturned the award and ruled that the company was entitled to win because Mr. Reeves had not introduced enough evidence that his dismissal was related to age bias.

In her opinion for the high court, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor said that once a plaintiff whose case meets basic discrimination criteria proves that his employer lied about its reasons for terminating him, he is entitled to win without having to come up with specific evidence that the employer discriminated against him.

“In appropriate circumstances, the trier of fact can reasonably infer from the falsity of the explanation that the employer is dissembling to cover up a discriminatory purpose,” Justice O’Connor said.

A version of this article appeared in the June 21, 2000 edition of Education Week as High Court Lowers Bar for Employees In Discrimination Suits

Events

This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
Student Well-Being Webinar
Attend to the Whole Child: Non-Academic Factors within MTSS
Learn strategies for proactively identifying and addressing non-academic barriers to student success within an MTSS framework.
Content provided by Renaissance
Classroom Technology K-12 Essentials Forum How to Teach Digital & Media Literacy in the Age of AI
Join this free event to dig into crucial questions about how to help students build a foundation of digital literacy.

EdWeek Top School Jobs

Teacher Jobs
Search over ten thousand teaching jobs nationwide — elementary, middle, high school and more.
View Jobs
Principal Jobs
Find hundreds of jobs for principals, assistant principals, and other school leadership roles.
View Jobs
Administrator Jobs
Over a thousand district-level jobs: superintendents, directors, more.
View Jobs
Support Staff Jobs
Search thousands of jobs, from paraprofessionals to counselors and more.
View Jobs

Read Next

Equity & Diversity Should Schools Tell Parents When Students Change Pronouns? California Says No
The law bans schools from passing policies that require notifying parents if their child asks to change their gender identification.
5 min read
Parents, students, and staff of Chino Valley Unified School District hold up signs in favor of protecting LGBTQ+ policies at Don Antonio Lugo High School, in Chino, Calif., June 15, 2023. California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a law Monday, July 15, 2024, barring school districts from passing policies that require schools to notify parents if their child asks to change their gender identification.
Parents, students, and staff of Chino Valley Unified School District hold up signs in favor of protecting LGBTQ+ policies at Don Antonio Lugo High School, in Chino, Calif., June 15, 2023. California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a law Monday, July 15, 2024, barring school districts from passing policies that require schools to notify parents if their child asks to change their gender identification.
Anjali Sharif-Paul/The Orange County Register via AP
Equity & Diversity Which Students Are Most Likely to Be Arrested in School?
A student’s race, gender, and disability status all heavily factor into which students are arrested.
3 min read
A sign outside the United States Government Accountability Office in central
iStock/Getty Images
Equity & Diversity Opinion Are Your Students the Protagonists of Their Own Educations?
A veteran educator spells out three ways student agency can deepen learning and increase equity.
Jennifer D. Klein
5 min read
Conceptual illustration of opening the magic book on dark background.
GrandFailure/iStock/Getty
Equity & Diversity Opinion Enrollment Down. Achievement Lackluster. Should This School Close?
An equity researcher describes how coming district-reorganization decisions can help preserve Black communities in central cities.
Francis A. Pearman
5 min read
Illustration: Sorry we are closed sign hanging outside a glass door.
iStock/Getty