Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc.

E166649

Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc. is a 2000 U.S. Supreme Court decision that clarified the standards for proving age discrimination under the ADEA, particularly the role of pretext and circumstantial evidence in employment discrimination cases.

All labels observed (1)

Label Occurrences
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc. canonical 6

How this entity was disambiguated

Statements (47)

Predicate Object
instanceOf ADEA case ⓘ
United States Supreme Court case ⓘ
age discrimination case ⓘ
employment discrimination case ⓘ
abbreviation ADEA ⓘ
citation 120 S. Ct. 2097 ⓘ
147 L. Ed. 2d 105 ⓘ
530 U.S. 133 ⓘ
country United States ⓘ
court Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ
decisionDate 2000-06-12 ⓘ
decisionType majority opinion ⓘ
docketNumber 99-536 ⓘ
employeeAgeGroup over 40 ⓘ
employmentAction termination of employment ⓘ
holding A court may not require a plaintiff to introduce additional, independent evidence of discrimination beyond proof of pretext ⓘ
A plaintiff’s prima facie case of discrimination combined with sufficient evidence that the employer’s stated reason is false may permit a finding of liability ⓘ
Judgment as a matter of law is inappropriate when the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, would allow a reasonable jury to find discrimination ⓘ
importance frequently cited in federal employment discrimination litigation ⓘ
leading precedent on proof structure in ADEA cases ⓘ
issue role of pretext evidence in employment discrimination cases ⓘ
standard for proving age discrimination under the ADEA ⓘ
use of circumstantial evidence to prove intentional discrimination ⓘ
jurisdiction United States ⓘ
keyConcept burden-shifting ⓘ
circumstantial evidence ⓘ
judgment as a matter of law ⓘ
pretext ⓘ
prima facie case of discrimination ⓘ
languageOfRecord English ⓘ
legalArea age discrimination law ⓘ
employment law ⓘ
federal anti-discrimination law ⓘ
lowerCourt United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ⓘ
lowerCourtDisposition judgment as a matter of law for the employer ⓘ
majorityOpinionBy Justice Sandra Day O’Connor ⓘ
partyType corporate employer ⓘ
individual employee ⓘ
petitioner Roger Reeves ⓘ
proceduralPosture review of a judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50 ⓘ
respondent Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc. ⓘ
result judgment of the Court of Appeals reversed ⓘ
standardApplied McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework ⓘ
statuteInterpreted Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 ⓘ
supremeCourtDisposition reversal of judgment as a matter of law ⓘ
term October Term 1999 ⓘ
vote 9-0 ⓘ

How these facts were elicited

Referenced by (6)

Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green → influenced → Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc. ⓘ
Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine → citedIn → Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc. ⓘ
Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc. → roleIn → Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc. ⓘ
Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc. → hasLegalCase → Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc. ⓘ
Roger Reeves → notableFor → Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc. ⓘ
Roger Reeves → partyToLawsuit → Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc. ⓘ