In the 1999 case of Roger Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Roger Reeves, an older employee who alleged age discrimination after being fired by his employer, Sanderson Plumbing Products. The company claimed that they terminated him due to poor job performance and record-keeping errors; however, Reeves presented evidence suggesting these reasons were merely a pretext for age discrimination. Despite this evidence being rejected by lower courts as insufficient to prove intentional discrimination without additional direct proof, the Supreme Court disagreed with this interpretation of law under Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). They held that if a plaintiff presents credible evidence contradicting an employer's explanation for termination and proving it false or unworthy of credence - even without additional independent proof - then a reasonable jury could infer discriminatory intent from such circumstances alone.

In the dissenting opinion for Roger Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., Justice Ginsburg argued that there was sufficient evidence to support a finding of age discrimination by the jury. She pointed out that Reeves had presented direct evidence of discriminatory remarks made by his supervisor and indirect evidence showing inconsistencies in the company's reasons for firing him. The majority held that this wasn't enough because Reeves hadn't shown additional independent proof of discrimination beyond proving his employer's explanation was false. However, Ginsburg disagreed with this requirement as it goes beyond what is required under law - once an employee has discredited an employer’s explanation for its action, no additional proof should be necessary to survive summary judgment and proceed to trial on claims of employment discrimination.