The Fourth Circuit held that Reeves had absolutely no bearing on Mr. Rowe s case. It explained that Reeves had simply clarified the Supreme Court s prior holding in St. Mary s Honor Center v. Hicks. In that opinion, the Court s highly technical holding had been that rejection of an employer s explanation as a pretext does not itself compel a verdict for the plaintiff. It reasoned that even if an employer's explanation were untrue, it could be apparent that some motive other than unlawful discrimination was the true reason for the employer s action. The Fourth Circuit explained that all Reeves did was to make clear that a finding of pretext was sufficient to permit a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, even though such a verdict was not compelled.
Employers take note.
Discrimination advocates have developed the unfounded habit of talking about the decision in Reeves as if it tilted the playing field dramatically against employers. It has not. Especially in the context of settling contested claims, employers should be ready to discount completely unfounded reliance on the rule of Reeves. That provision states that compensatory and punitive damages may not be imposed on an employer who made good faith efforts, in consultation with its disabled employee, to identify a reasonable accommodation by which the employee might be permitted to work. This interactive process between employer and disabled employee should always be undertaken when an employee requests an accommodation.