The U.S. Supreme Court recently made a significant decision that will benefit workers in employment-discrimination lawsuits. The court ruled that workers generally will not need additional evidence of bias when their employers’ stated reason for a negative job action is proven to be false. Prior to this ruling, many lower federal courts required more evidence of actual discrimination even when plaintiffs had already shown that their employers’ explanations for dismissals or other job actions were just excuses. The Supreme Court, in the unanimous decision of Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products Inc., rejected the evidentiary standard known as "pretext plus."

While this case specifically dealt with the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, legal experts believe that the court’s ruling will also apply to race and sex discrimination cases filed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as job-bias cases brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

It is worth noting that school districts, as large employers, are frequently sued under these federal laws, especially under Title VII.

The ruling was made in the case of Roger Reeves, a supervisor at a plumbing-supplies manufacturer who was 57 years old when he was fired in 1995 and replaced by a younger worker. Reeves sued the company for age discrimination, arguing that their stated reason for his dismissal, inaccurate attendance records, was just a cover-up for age bias. He presented evidence proving that he had maintained accurate records and that some of his superiors had made age-related comments about him. A jury awarded Reeves nearly $100,000 in damages. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit overturned the award, stating that Reeves had not presented enough evidence linking his dismissal to age bias.

In her opinion for the high court, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor explained that once a plaintiff, whose case meets the basic discrimination criteria, proves that their employer lied about the reasons for their termination, they should be entitled to win without having to provide specific evidence of discrimination. Justice O’Connor emphasized that when the employer’s explanation is proven false, it can reasonably be inferred that they are trying to conceal a discriminatory purpose.