Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products,
Inc. case brief
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
530 U.S. 133
CASE SYNOPSIS: Petitioner former
employee filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which reversed a trial
court judgment for petitioner in his action alleging that respondent
former employer violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of
1967, 29 U.S.C.S. § 621 et seq.
FACTS: The former employee brought an action against the former employer alleging that the employer violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C.S. § 621 et seq., in terminating his employment. The trial court submitted the case to the jury, which rendered judgment in favor of the employee. The employer appealed, and the appellate court reversed, holding that although a reasonable jury could have found that the employer's explanation for the employee's termination was pretextual, this showing, standing alone, was insufficient to sustain the jury's finding of liability. The employee filed a petition for a writ of certiorari. The court granted certiorari and reversed, holding that the appellate court erred in reversing the trial court because the employee established a prima facie case of discrimination, introduced enough evidence for the jury to reject the employer's explanation, produced additional evidence of age-based animus, and presented sufficient evidence for the jury to find that the employer had intentionally discriminated against the employee based on his age.
CONCLUSION: Judgment reversed because the former employee established a prima facie case of discrimination by his former employer, introduced enough evidence for the jury to reject the employer's explanation, produced additional evidence of age-based animus, and because there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that the employer had intentionally discriminated against the employee.
FACTS: The former employee brought an action against the former employer alleging that the employer violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C.S. § 621 et seq., in terminating his employment. The trial court submitted the case to the jury, which rendered judgment in favor of the employee. The employer appealed, and the appellate court reversed, holding that although a reasonable jury could have found that the employer's explanation for the employee's termination was pretextual, this showing, standing alone, was insufficient to sustain the jury's finding of liability. The employee filed a petition for a writ of certiorari. The court granted certiorari and reversed, holding that the appellate court erred in reversing the trial court because the employee established a prima facie case of discrimination, introduced enough evidence for the jury to reject the employer's explanation, produced additional evidence of age-based animus, and presented sufficient evidence for the jury to find that the employer had intentionally discriminated against the employee based on his age.
CONCLUSION: Judgment reversed because the former employee established a prima facie case of discrimination by his former employer, introduced enough evidence for the jury to reject the employer's explanation, produced additional evidence of age-based animus, and because there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that the employer had intentionally discriminated against the employee.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment