Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products

Decision Date22 April 1999
Docket NumberDEFENDANT-APPELLANT,No. 98-60334,PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,98-60334
Parties(5th Cir. 1999) ROGER REEVES,, v. SANDERSON PLUMBING PRODUCTS, INC.,
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi (96-CV-197)

Before Higginbotham, Jones and Wiener, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam

In this age discrimination case, Defendant-Appellant Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc. ("Sanderson") appeals the district court's order denying Sanderson's post-verdict motion for judgment as a matter of law ("JML"), and granting Plaintiff-Appellee Roger Reeves's motion for front pay. After reviewing the record, we conclude that Reeves did not prove a violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA") by a preponderance of the evidence. Hence, we reverse the district court's order and render judgment in favor of Sanderson.

I. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

Fifty-seven year old Reeves was employed for 40 years by Sanderson -- a company involved in the manufacture of toilet seats and covers. At the time of his discharge, Reeves worked in a department of the company known as the Hinge Room. The Hinge Room ran a regular line which was supervised by Reeves, and a special line which was supervised by 35 year old Joe Oswalt. Forty-five year old Russell Caldwell was the manager of the department and he supervised both Reeves and Oswalt.

At all times relevant to this case, a union represented Sanderson's production and maintenance employees. The union contract included general work rules, part of which dealt specifically with attendance. Pursuant to these rules, an employee who was absent from work in excess of five percent of his scheduled hours in a month, or who was late twice in a month, was subject to disciplinary action.

As part of his essential duties as a supervisor, Reeves was required to keep daily, weekly, and monthly records of the attendance and tardiness of employees under his control. These records were reviewed by Reeves for accuracy before he passed them on to Caldwell, who then sent them on to data processing.

In the fall of 1993, Sanderson's Department of Quality Control --under the direction of Powe Chesnut -- conducted a review of the operating procedures in the Hinge Room. According to Sanderson, the study revealed productivity problems on Reeves's regular line, stemming from a lax assembly line operation. As a result, Reeves was placed on a 90-day probation for unsatisfactory work performance.

Nearly three years later, in the summer of 1995, Caldwell informed Chesnut -- who by this time had become Director of Manufacturing -- that the Hinge Room was again having difficulty meeting its production requirements due to pervasive absenteeism and tardiness. Because the Hinge Room records did not reflect employee attendance problems, however, Chesnut requested that Lucille Reeves, then-Manager of Quality Control, conduct an audit of the department's time sheets. This investigation revealed numerous timekeeping errors and misrepresentations on the part of Caldwell, Reeves, and Oswalt. Dana Jester, Vice President of Human Resources, conducted an independent review of the records, and confirmed Quality Control's findings. Armed with these results, Chesnut, Jester, and Vice President of Operations Tom Whitaker, recommended to Company President Sandra Sanderson 1 that Caldwell and Reeves be dismissed. 2 Ms. Sanderson -- who was 52 years old at the time -- heeded this advice, firing both Caldwell and Reeves in October 1995. Thereafter, Sanderson filled Reeves's position, on three successive occasions, with men in their thirties.

In June 1996, Reeves filed suit, claiming that Sanderson terminated him because of his age, in violation of the ADEA. Reeves based his claim on two age-related statements allegedly made by Chesnut several months before Reeves's dismissal, namely (1) that Reeves was so old that he "must have come over on the Mayflower," and (2) that he was "too damn old to do the job."

At the Conclusion of the trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Reeves, awarding him $35,000 and finding that Sanderson discriminated willfully on the basis of age in its adverse employment action. After the verdict, Sanderson renewed its previous motion for JML, and moved, in the alternative, for a new trial. At the same time, Reeves filed a motion seeking front pay. The district court denied Sanderson's motions, and entered judgment in favor of Reeves in the amount $70,000 -- adding $35,000 in liquidated damages to the jury's compensatory damages in that amount based on the jury's determination of willfulness. 3 In addition, the court awarded Reeves $28,490.80 in front pay, representing two years of lost income. Sanderson timely filed a notice of appeal.

II. ANALYSIS
A. Standard of Review

"A motion for judgment as a matter of law . . . in an action tried by jury is a challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury's verdict." 4 We review the denial of such motions de novo, applying the same standard as the district court. 5 A JML is appropriate if the "facts and inferences point so strongly and overwhelmingly in favor of one party that a reasonable jury could not have concluded" as the jury did. 6 Applying this standard to the instant case, the district court's judgment should be reversed only if "there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find" that Sanderson discharged Reeves because of his age. 7

B. The ADEA

The ADEA makes it "unlawful for an employer . . . to discharge any individual . . . because of such individual's age." 8 To establish a violation of the ADEA, a plaintiff must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, intentional discrimination on the part of his employer. 9 As direct evidence of discrimination is rare, plaintiffs may rely on indirect evidence and reasonable inferences to establish an ADEA claim under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting analysis. 10

Under this analysis, a plaintiff must first present a prima facie case, thereby establishing a rebuttable presumption of age discrimination. 11 If the plaintiff meets this burden, the employer must then rebut the presumption by articulating a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the challenged employment action. 12 If the employer presents such evidence, then the presumption of discrimination fades, and the plaintiff must prove that the employer's articulated reason is a pretext for unlawful discrimination. 13

To establish pretext, a plaintiff must prove not only that the employer's stated reason for its employment decision was false, but also that age discrimination "had a determinative influence on" the employer's decision-making process. 14 Age-related comments may serve as sufficient evidence of discrimination if the remarks are (1) proximate in time to the termination; (2) made by an individual with authority over the challenged employment decision; and (3) related to that employment decision. 15 Mere "stray remarks" -- i.e., comments which are "vague and remote in time" -- however, are insufficient to establish discrimination. 16

Sufficiency of the Evidence

On appeal, Sanderson does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting Reeves's prima facie case of age discrimination. 17 Rather, Sanderson argues that it articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory explanation for firing Reeves: Reeves's shoddy record keeping. Because Reeves failed to offer evidence sufficient to prove both that this reason is untrue and that age is what really triggered Reeves's discharge, argues Sanderson, it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. We agree.

At trial, Chesnut testified that he became aware of timekeeping problems in the Hinge Room after Caldwell -- the department manager --complained of inadequate production resulting from absenteeism. This complaint prompted an investigation which uncovered numerous errors in the department's attendance records. Because of specific misrepresentations and errors made by Reeves, argues Sanderson, employees under Reeves's control were being paid for time they did not work, and were not being disciplined for their habitual absenteeism and tardiness. Reeves testified that he was familiar with the company's attendance policy, as well as his timekeeping responsibilities as a supervisor under that policy. In light of this admission, argues Sanderson, Reeves's failure to keep accurate records in accordance with the policy amounts to unsatisfactory work performance, which is a legitimate, nondiscriminatory basis for dismissal.

Reeves attempts to cast suspicion on Sanderson's proffered explanation by first asserting that Sanderson's explanation changed between the time of Reeves's discharge and trial. When he was fired, claims Reeves, he was told that he had caused a specific employee to be paid for time she had not actually worked. In contrast, Reeves argues, Sanderson defended its employment decision at trial by claiming that Reeves's timekeeping mistakes had resulted in the overpayment of numerous employees. Although proof that an employer lied to its employee about its reasons for discharge does, under some circumstances, raise a "red flag" of pretext, 18 the inconsistency noted by Reeves in this case can hardly be considered mendacious. Sanderson has, at all times, supported its decision to fire Reeves with the charge that Reeves's work performance was unsatisfactory. That Sanderson may have explained this charge at the time of dismissal with only one instance of inaccurate record keeping,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 cases
  • Williamson v. American National Insurance Company, Civil Action No. H-07-3776.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Southern District of Texas
    • 2 d2 Março d2 2010
    ...In Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000), reversing Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 197 F.3d 688 (5th Cir.1999), the Supreme Court declined to use this four-prong test from CSC Logic employed below by the Fifth Circuit whe......
  • Andrade v. City of San Antonio, Civ.A. SA99CA1292NN.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Western District of Texas
    • 16 d2 Janeiro d2 2001
    ...85. Reeves, 120 S.Ct. at 2104-05 (describing the circuit conflict resulting from the confusion). 86. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 197 F.3d 688 (5th Cir.1999); and Reeves, 120 S.Ct. at 87. Reeves, 120 S.Ct. at 2108. 88. Id. at 2109 (Emphasis added). 89. Id. at 2108-09. 90. Id......
  • Agoh v. Hyatt Corp., CIVIL ACTION NO. H-12-1398
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Southern District of Texas
    • 10 d5 Janeiro d5 2014
    ...(5th Cir. 2003)(per curiam). 4. In Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000), reversing Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 197 F.3d 688 (5th Cir. 1999), the Supreme Court declined to use this four-prong test from CSC Logic employed below by the Fifth Circuit whe......
  • Nadeau v. Echostar, EP-12-CV-433-KC
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Western District of Texas
    • 30 d3 Outubro d3 2013
    ...because "they 'were not made in the direct context of [the plaintiff's] termination.'" Id. (quoting Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 197 F.3d 688, 693 (5th Cir. 1999)). The Supreme Court held that this, combined with other instances of the Fifth Circuit "impermissibly substitut[in......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • Fifth Circuit Resurrects Pretext Plus
    • United States
    • LexBlog United States
    • 2 d4 Junho d4 2022
    ...explanation.” Reeves, at p. 147. The Overruled Decision Consider the Fifth Circuit’s language in Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, 197 F.3d 688 (5th Cir. 1999), the decision which the Reeves Supreme Court overturned: ” . . . Because Reeves failed to offer evidence sufficient to prove b......
4 books & journal articles
  • Proving age discrimination
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Age Discrimination Litigation
    • 28 d4 Abril d4 2022
    ...evidence that age was the reason for the adverse action in addition to evidence of pretext. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc. , 197 F.3d 688 (5th Cir. 1999). In Reeves , the appellate court reversed a trial judge’s denial of judgment as a matter of law after a jury inding for plai......
  • Summary judgment
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Age Discrimination Litigation
    • 28 d4 Abril d4 2022
    ...(3d Cir. 2005). Fifth Circuit The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods. Inc., 197 F.3d 688 (5th Cir. 1999), rev’d , 530 U.S. 133 (2000). The Fifth Circuit has revised its pretext analysis to comport with Reeves , holding that “eviden......
  • The implications of psychological research related to unconscious discrimination and implicit bias in proving intentional discrimination.
    • United States
    • Missouri Law Review Vol. 73 No. 1, January 2008
    • 1 d2 Janeiro d2 2008
    ...they "'were not made in the direct context of Reeves's termination.'" Id. at 152 (quoting Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 197 F.3d 688, 693 (5th Cir. (88.) For example, the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case and presents evidence of comments, but presents no evidence direct......
  • Pragmatism over politics: recent trends in lower court employment discrimination jurisprudence.
    • United States
    • Missouri Law Review Vol. 73 No. 2, March - March 2008
    • 22 d6 Março d6 2008
    ...the employer presented was false, but also that discrimination was the real reason). (167.) Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 197 F.3d 688, 693 (5th Cir. 1999) (disproving employer's proffered reason for adverse employment action not necessarily sufficient to show discrimination); ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT