Your paper should begin with a discussion of the essential facts of the case, including a brief summary of the lower court decision(s) which gave rise to the appeal. Your discussion of the facts should be followed by a detailed analysis of the case. Your analysis should indicate what legal issues are presented in the case - in other words, what issues is the Court attempting to address and resolve? Some cases might have only a single issue, while others may have maore than one. After you have described the facts and identified the legal issues presented, you should identify the relevant provisions of the law that the Court is interpreting in the case. In other words, what is the rule of law that governs the Court's analysis of the case? Finally, you should summarize the Court's decision, or holding, in the case, and discuss how the Court reached its decision. You must also consider and discuss the practical implications of the Court's decision for both the employers and the applicants/employees. Your assignment should be in the form of a paper analyzing and discussing a case or set of facts pertaining to one or more areas of employment law. NEW: Brown Revisited PETITIONER RESPONDENT Reeves Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc. DOCKET NO. DECIDED BY 99-536 Rehnquist Court LOWER COURT United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit CITATION 530 US133(2000) ARGUED Mar 21,2000 DECIDED Jun12,2000 ADVOCATES Patricia A. Millett Argued the cause for the United States, as amicus curiae, by special leave of court, supporting the petitioner Taylor B. Smith Argued the cause for the respondent JimWaide Argued the cause for the petitioner Facts of the case Roger Reeves, 57, and Joe Oswalt, in his mid-thirties, were supervisors in different Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc. departments. Reeves' duties included making sure workers under his supervision were on time and at work and logging such data. Reeves' department was managed by Russell Caldwell, 45, who was responsible for reviewing Reeves' work. Caldwell informed the company's director of manufacturing, Powe Chesnut, that production in Revees' department was down because employees were often absent, comingin late, and leaving early. Chesnut ordered an audit, which revealed numerous timekeeping errors and misrepresentations by Caldwell, Reeves, and Oswalt. Chesnut recommended that Reeves and Caldwell be fired and, subsequently, their employment was terminated. Reeves filed suit, alleging that he had been terminated because of his age in violation of the Age Discriminationin Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA). At trial, Sanderson contended that Reeves was fired because of his failure to maintain accurate attendance records. Reeves attempted to demonstrate that this explanation was a pretext for age discrimination and introduced evidence that he had accurately recorded the attendance of employees under his supervision and that Chesnut had demonstrated age-related animosity when dealing with him. Ultimately, the case went to a jury, which returned a verdict for Reeves. Inreversing, the Court of Appeals concluded that Reeves had not presented sufficient evidence to sustain a finding of age-based discrimination. Question Is a plaintiff's prima facie case of age discrimination, combined with sufficient evidence for a reasonable factfinder to reject the employer's nondiscriminatory explanation for its decision, adequate to sustain a finding of liability for intentional discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967? Conclusion Sort: by seniority by ideology UNANIMOUS DECISION FOR REEVES MAJORITY OPINION BY SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR Stevens Scalia Souter Ginsburg Rehnquist O'connor Kennedy Thomas Breyer Yes. In a unanimous opinion deliver by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the Court held that "[al plaintiff's prima facie case of discrimination, combined with sufficient evidence for a reasonable factfinder to reject the employer's nondiscriminatory explanation for its decision, may be adequate to sustain a finding of liability for intentional discrimination under the ADEA." The ruling means that an employer is liable to a former employee under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 if a reasonable jury can find that the employer's explanation for the employee's dismissal was pretext for discrimination