Thanks, Pat.  I am sending you a copy of the opinion, which I got from the 
Daily Labor Report.  Michelle




	FMackin@aol.com
	06/12/2000 05:27 PM
		 
		 To: sbutche@enron.com, Michelle.Cash@enron.com, Kriste_Sullivan@enron.com
		 cc: 
		 Subject: Ruling Helps Workers Prove Job Bias


Ruling Helps Workers Prove Job Bias

By RICHARD CARELLI
.c The Associated Press

WASHINGTON (June 12) - Workers who say their employers illegally
discriminated against them can win lawsuits, or at least get their
accusations to a jury, without direct evidence of intentional bias, the
Supreme Court ruled Monday.

The court's unanimous decision in an age-bias dispute from Mississippi could
carry profound practical importance as well for lawsuits nationwide that
charge employment discrimination based on race, sex and physical disabilities.

The ruling was a huge setback for employers because some federal appeals
courts routinely had dismissed lawsuits that lacked ''smoking gun'' evidence
of employers' discriminatory intent.

Monday's decision said circumstantial evidence often is enough to sue
employers successfully.

Employer organizations were disappointed.

''The bottom line is ... it may be tougher to get cases out of the hands of
the jury,'' said Peter Petsch, a lawyer for the Society for Human Resource
Management. ''In some jurisdictions, we're going to see more litigation ...
which lasts longer, even for employers who did nothing wrong,'' he said.

But Thomas Osborne, an AARP lawyer, praised the decision as a victory for the
some 12 million over-50 workers who belong to his organization because it
''says employers no longer can lie about their personnel decisions and get
away with it.''

''The playing field is no longer slanted toward employers,'' Osborne said.

In a series of employment-bias decisions, the nation's highest court has
imposed various requirements on employees who say they were treated
illegally. They must show they were subjected to adverse treatment and that
the employer's asserted reason for such treatment was phony.

But federal appeals courts have disagreed on a key point:
whether employees who discredit an employer's stated reason must also offer
proof of a discriminatory motive. Not always, the Supreme Court said Monday.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote that a federal appeals court wrongly relied
on ''the premise that a plaintiff must always introduce additional,
independent evidence of discrimination.''

''Proof that the defendant's explanation is unworthy of credence is simply
one form of circumstantial evidence that is probative of intentional
discrimination, and it may be quite persuasive,'' she said. ''In appropriate
circumstances, the trier of fact can reasonably infer form the falsity of the
explanation that the employer is dissembling to cover up a discriminatory
purpose.''

O'Connor said employees will not always be entitled to win a job-bias lawsuit
after showing that an employer's explanation for their treatment was false.
But she ruled that it was enough in the case of a Mississippi man who said
age discrimination cost him his supervisory job at a toilet-seat
manufacturing plant.

Roger Reeves sued Sanderson Plumbing Products of Columbus, Miss., after he
was fired in 1995 from his job as a hinge-department supervisor in the plant.
Reeves, then 57, had worked at the plant for 40 years.

His lawsuit invoked the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and a
jury awarded him $70,000 in damages and $28,490 in lost pay.

But the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals threw out that award after ruling
that Reeves had not offered enough proof of illegal age bias.

Reeves had been required to prove he was over 40 and therefore protected by
the federal law, that he had been fired and replaced with someone younger.
Such evidence amounted to what courts call a ''prima facie'' showing of
discrimination.

Sanderson Plumbing then was required to offer a legitimate, nondiscriminatory
reason for the firing. Once it did, the burden shifted back to Reeves to show
that the stated reason was false.

He also pointed to derogatory comments made about his age by a supervisor.

Company officials said Reeves had been fired for falsifying time records but
he showed that he had not.

The jury apparently concluded that he succeeded in proving bias, but the
appeals court said Reeves had to also offer proof that the company's decision
was motivated by age bias.

Monday's decision said the appeals court was wrong about that, and reinstated
the jury's verdict.

AP-NY-06-12-00 1522EDT

Copyright 2000 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news
report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed
without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. All active
hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.