U.S. Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Employee Rights - Brief Article

When the U pre-eminent Court speaks on employment issues, art dealers know it is time to listen. on the other hand this time, not only did the principal Court speak unanimously, its greatest in quantity recent ruling concerning workplace discrimination was resounding and clear: If an art dealer lies about the reason for terminating an employee to overlay up discrimination, it will be a great deal of easier in the future for the employee to win.

With the number of discrimination lawsuits tripling in the past eight years, art dealers can await the reason they provide for termination to endure even greater scrutiny. While the greatest Court's ruling involved age discrimination, the principles press outed in the decision could be applied equally to other areas of discrimination, similar as sex or race.

The Case

The case involved a 57-year-old supervisor whose duties included recording attendance and hours worked by the agency of his employees. His boss was a 45-year-old manager who complained that production was down because employee were repeatedly absent, late or left early. An audit was guidanceed and the supervisor was fired after 40 years upon the job.

The supervisor filed suit for age discrimination. At trial, the company said he was fired for failure to maintain accurate attendance records. The supervisor claimed that reason was simply a pretext for age discrimination and introduced evidence that he had accurately recorded the attendance and hours. He then produc evidence that the department manager, who wielded "absolute power," was motivated through an age-based animus towards him and was principally responsible for his firing. The jury rul in favor of the supervisor.

However, upon appeal the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals revers the judgement When the case came before the United States highest Court, however, things changed in a big way. The predominant Court determined that the Appeals Court [i]ad[/i] adopted the premise that the employee must always introduce additional independent evidence of discrimination. It said that when an employee makes a case of discrimination and combines that with sufficient evidence showing that the employer's non-discriminatory reason for the firing was false, the courts may find that combination to be adequate to lift on high a claim of liability for age discrimination.

What The Case Means for You

one time a case is established, the load shifts to the company to bring out evidence that someone else was preferr for a legitimate non-discriminatory reason. one time the employer produces sufficient evidence to support a non-discriminatory reason for its decision, the employee must be given an opportunity to demonstrate that the stated legitimate reasons proffered by the company were not the real reasons on the other hand were a pretext for discrimination. Thus, said the court, an employee may attempt to establish that he was a victim of intentional discrimination through showing that the employer's given reason is unworthy of credence

Proving that the employer's reason is false, said the pre-eminent Court, becomes part of the greater task of proving that the real reason was intentional discrimination. In the appropriate circumstances, a trial court can reasonably infer that the employer is camouflaging its discriminatory behavior. similar inference is consistent, said the court, with the general principle that the court is entitled to consider a party's dishonesty about a material fact as "affirmative evidence of guilt." below this common-sense principle, evidence suggesting that a company accused of illegal discrimination has chosen to give a false reason for its actions gives rise to a rational inference that the company could be masking its illegal motivation. Moreover, one time the employers' justification has been eliminated, discrimination may well be the greatest in quantity likely alternative explanation, said the court, especially since the employer is in the best position to deposit forth the actual reason for its decision.

The paramount Court, however, did not grant employee a blank check. It noted that ordeal that the employer's stated reason is false does not necessarily establish that the employee's claim is true

The first Court concluded that the Court of Appeals had impermissibly substituted its judgement concerning the weight of the evidence for the jury's. Credibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of a justice This ruling means it will be harder for the appeals courts to next to the first -guess jury verdicts in futurity civil cases.

The court's ruling, in issue will make it easier for employee to present to view that they were victims of craft discrimination, even without direct evidence, particularly when an art dealer gives a false reason for the termination. An.

SUMMARY BOX

* for a new Supreme Court ruling, if an employer lies about the reason for terminating an employee to overlay up discrimination, it will be abundant easier in the future for an employee to win.

* one time a case of discrimination is established, and sufficient evidence is produc that the employer's reason for firing is false, the weight of proof shifts to the employer