What might sound like a technical point of interest only to lawyers is, instead, a critical court decision for employers hoping to ward off lawsuits by former employees, especially the Borderline Bobs. This ruling is critical because prior to Reeves , federal courts in North and South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia and Maryland had held that a plaintiff's burden was not only to cast the employer's explanation in doubt, but also to prove that some kind of discriminatory motive was behind the decision. Most plaintiffs proved discriminatory motive by relying on racial or gender-based comments . After the Reeves decision, a plaintiff generally does not have to produce direct evidence of bias in order to warrant a jury trial. It can be enough to produce evidence that the employer's stated reason for discharge is false, even if there is no evidence of discriminatory motive.
Most plaintiffs rely on evidence that comes from employers themselves.
For example, if the reason given for discharge was Bob's poor performance, there might be a personnel file with satisfactory performance reviews introduced as evidence. Or, Bob's supervisor might have always complimented Bob in conversation, without documenting instances of poor performance. Or, Bob might have been told he was fired because his absences and lack of effort have had an adverse effect on co-workers. This reason will be hard to support if there is no record of co-workers complaining about Bob or managers complaining about his impact on fellow employees. Things get worse if other employees with similar attendance records have not been similarly punished.