For a variety of reasons tied to the statute itself and the way courts have interpreted it, employees have generally faced an uphill battle prevailing in age discrimination lawsuits brought pursuant to the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).  The graying demographics of the U.S. workforce, coupled with a June decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, may begin to erode the advantage held by employers.

In its decision, Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., the Supreme Court ruled that employees can win age bias lawsuits without directly proving that their employer acted with illegal intent.  In an opinion written by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the Court ruled that employees may prove that they suffered discrimination by showing that their employer's proffered reason for termination was false and that the likely alternative explanation was discrimination.
The Court's ruling overturned a federal circuit court's decision holding that, in order to prove his claim, a 57-year-old plaintiff not only had to discredit his employer's explanation for firing him but also had to prove that the decision was motivated by discriminatory intent.  The circuit court had thrown out Roger Reeves' $98,000 jury verdict on the grounds that he had not met his burden of proof.  Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice O'Connor rejected this high standard, stating that plaintiffs in age discrimination suits do not always have to provide direct, independent evidence of discriminatory intent in order to prevail. 

Reeves resolved a dispute between federal circuit courts on the proper standard of proof involving age bias claims.  Since the circuit court responsible for hearing appeals from Maine had adopted the standard ultimately rejected by the Supreme Court, Reeves will certainly impact the tactical decisions made by attorneys currently pursuing ADEA lawsuits here.   Ultimately, the decision in Reeves may also have a profound impact in many types of employment claims brought under federal law, since the Court clarified the applicable standard of proof that had been applied across many different types of anti-discrimination claims. 
Without question, the Supreme Court clarified that Congress never intended to insulate employers from age bias claims simply because an employee alleging discrimination does not have "smoking gun" evidence that his age was the motivating reason for his termination or layoff.  To some degree, Reeves will decrease the number of summary judgment rulings issued in favor of employers prior to trial in discrimination suits because uncorroborated evidence of the decisionmaker as to his or her non-discriminatory reasons for the relevant employment action is no longer given credence at summary judgment, if the plaintiff is able to present evidence that contradicts the decisionmaker or introduces evidence impeaching the decisionmaker, without contradicting the stated non-discriminatory reasons.  Even though Reeves will give juries wider latitude to decide cases even in the absence of evidence that the employer based its decision on age, nothing in Reeves prevents employers from continuing to prevail in cases where their judgment is disputed by the employee, so long as the company has not contradicted its own non-discriminatory reasons by other statements or actions.   Nor does Reeves restrict an employer's ability to prevail where it has presented multiple non-discriminatory reasons for a termination or layoff.  Even if there is evidence from which a jury might be free to disbelieve one reason, the employer should still win summary judgment where its other reason is uncontested.