author: Justice Thomas Justice O’Connor, Justice Breyer,

text:
    SIMS v. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
    No. 98-9537.
    Argued March 28, 2000 —
    Decided June 5, 2000

      Thomas, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I and II-A, in which Stevens, O’Connor, Souter, and Ginsburg, JJ., joined, and an opinion with respect to Part II-B, in which Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg, JJ., joined. O’Connor, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, post, p. 112. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Scaua and Kennedy, JJ., joined, post, p. 114.

      Sarah H. Bohr argued the cause for petitioner. With her on the briefs were Chantal J. Harrington, Gary R. Parvin, and Jon C. Dubin.

      Malcolm L. Stewart argued the cause for. respondent. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Waxman, Acting Assistant Attorney General Ogden, Deputy Solicitor General Kneedler, William Kanter, and Robert D. Kamenshine

         Rochelle Bobroff, Michael Schuster, and Robert E. Rains filed a brief for the American Association of Retired Persons et al. as amici curiae urging reversal.

   Justice Thomas

announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I and II-A, and an opinion with respect to Part II-B, in which Justice Stevens, Justice Souter, and Justice Ginsburg join.

A person whose claim for Social Security benefits is denied by an administrative law judge (ALJ) must in most cases, before seeking judicial review of that denial, request that the Social Security Appeals Council review his claim. The question is whether a claimant pursuing judicial review has waived any issues that he did not include in that request. We hold that he has not.

I

In 1994, petitioner Juatassa Sims filed applications for disability benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, 49 Stat. 622, 42 U. S. C. §401 et seq., and for supplemental security income benefits under Title XVI of that Act, 86 Stat. 1465, 42 U. S. C. § 1881 et seq. She alleged disability from a variety of ailments, including degenerative joint diseases and carpal tunnel syndrome. After a state agency denied her claims, she obtained a hearing before a Social Security ALJ. See generally Heckler v. Day, 467 U. S. 104, 106-107 (1984) (describing stages of review of elaims for Social Security benefits). The ALJ, in 1996, also denied her elaims, concluding that, although she did have some medical impairments, she had not been and was not under a “disability,” as defined in the Act. See 42 U. S. C. §§ 423(d) (1994 ed. and Supp. III) and 1382e(a)(3) (1994 ed., Supp. Ill); Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U. S. 521, 524-526 (1990).

Petitioner then requested that the Social Security Appeals Council review her elaims. A claimant may request such review by completing a one-page form provided by the Social Security Administration (SSA) — Form HA-520 — or “by any other writing specifically requesting review.” 20 CFR § 422.205(a) (1999). Petitioner, through counsel, chose the latter option, submitting to the Council a letter arguing that the ALJ had erred in several ways in analyzing the evidence. The Council denied review.

Next, petitioner filed suit in the District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi. She contended that (1) the ALJ had made selective use of the record; (2) the questions the ALJ had posed to a vocational expert to determine petitioner’s ability to work were defective because they omitted several of petitioner’s ailments; and (3) in light of certain peculiarities in the medical evidence, the ALJ should have ordered a consultative examination. The District Court rejected all of these contentions. App. 74-84.

The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed. 200 F. 3d 229 (1998). That court affirmed on the merits with regard to petitioner’s first contention. With regard to the second and third contentions, it concluded that, under its decision in Paul v. Shalala, 29 F. 3d 208, 210 (1994), it lacked jurisdiction because petitioner had not raised those contentions in her request for review by the Appeals Council. We granted certiorari, 528 U. S. 1018 (1999), to resolve a conflict among the Courts of Appeals over whether a Social Security claimant waives judicial review of an issue if he fails to exhaust that issue by presenting it to the Appeals Council in his request for review. Compare Paul, supra, at 210; James v. Chafer, 96 F. 3d 1341, 1343-1344 (CA10 1996), with Harwood v. Apfel, 186 F. 3d 1039, 1042-1043 (CA81999); Johnson v. Apfel, 189 F. 3d 561, 563-564 (CA7 1999).

II

A

The Social Security Act provides that “[a]ny individual, after any final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security made after a hearing to which he was a party,... may obtain a review of such decision by a civil action” in federal district court. 42 U. S. C. § 405(g). But the Act does not define “final decision,” instead leaving.it to the SSA to give meaning to that term through regulations. See § 405(a); Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U. S. 749, 766 (1975). SSA regulations provide that, if the Appeals Council grants review of a claim, then the decision that the Council issues is the Commissioner’s final decision. But if, as here, the Council denies the request for review, the ALJ’s opinion becomes the final decision. See 20 CFR §§404.900(a)(4)-(5), 404.955, 404.981, 422.210(a) (1999). If a claimant fails to request review from the Council, there is no final decision and, as a result, no judicial review in most cases. See § 404.900(b); Bowen v. City of New York, 476 U. S. 467, 482-483 (1986). In administrative-law parlance, such a claimant may not obtain judicial review because he has failed to exhaust administrative remedies. See Salfi, supra, at 765-766.

The Commissioner rightly concedes that petitioner exhausted administrative remedies by requesting review by the Council. Petitioner thus obtained a final decision, and nothing in § 405(g) or the regulations implementing it bars judicial review of her claims.

Nevertheless, the Commissioner contends that we should require issue exhaustion in addition to exhaustion of remedies. That is, he contends that a Social Security claimant, to obtain judicial review of an issue, not only must obtain a final decision on his claim for benefits, but also must specify that issue in his request for review by the Council. (Whether a claimant must exhaust issues before the ALJ is not before us.) The Commissioner argues, in particular, that an issue-exhaustion requirement is “an important corollary” of any requirement of exhaustion of remedies. Brief for Respondent 18. We think that this is not necessarily so and that the corollary is particularly unwarranted in this case.

Initially, we note that requirements of administrative issue exhaustion are largely creatures of statute. Marine Mammal Conservancy, Inc. v. Department of Agriculture, 184 F. 3d 409, 412 (CADC 1998). Our eases addressing issue exhaustion reflect this fact. For example, in Woelke & Romero Framing, Inc. v. NLRB, 456 U. S. 645 (1982), we held that the Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction to review objections not raised before the National Labor Relations Board. We so held because a statute provided that “ ‘[n]o objection that has not been urged before the Board... shall be considered by the court.” Id., at 665 (quoting 29 U. S. C. § 160(e) (1982 ed.)). Our decision in FPC v. Colorado Interstate Gas Co., 348 U. S. 492, 497-498 (1955), followed similar reasoning. See also United States v. L. A. Tucker Truck Lines, Inc., 344 U. S. 33, 36, n. 6 (1952) (collecting statutes); Washington Assn, for Television and Children v. FCC, 712 F. 2d 677, 681-682, and n. 6 (CADC 1983) (interpreting issue-exhaustion requirement in 47 U. S. C. § 405 (1982 ed.) and collecting statutes). Here, the Commissioner does not contend that any statute requires issue exhaustion in the request for review.

Similarly, it is common for an agency's regulations to require issue exhaustion in administrative appeals. See, e. g., 20 CFR § 802.211(a) (1999) (petition for review to Benefits Review Board must “lis[t] the specific issues to be considered on appeal”). And when regulations do so, courts reviewing agency action regularly ensure against the bypassing of that requirement by refusing to consider unexhausted issues. See, e.g., South Carolina v. United States Dept. of Labor, 795 F. 2d 375, 378 (CA4 1986); Sears, Roebuck and Co. v. FTC, 676 F. 2d 385, 398, n. 26 (CA9 1982). Yet, SSA regulations do not require issue exhaustion. (Although the question is not before us, we think it likely that the Commissioner could adopt a regulation that did require issue exhaustion.)

It is true that we have imposed an issue-exhaustion requirement even in the absence of a statute or regulation. But the reason we have done so does not apply here. The basis for a judicially imposed issue-exhaustion requirement is an analogy to the rule that appellate courts will not consider arguments not raised before trial courts. As the Court explained in Hormel v. Helvering, 312 U. S. 552 (1941):

“Ordinarily an appellate court does not give consideration to issues not raised below. For our procedural scheme contemplates that parties shall come to issue in the trial forum vested with authority to determine questions of fact. This is essential in order that parties may have the opportunity to offer all the evidence they believe relevant to the issues which the trial tribunal is alone competent to decide; it is equally essential in order that litigants may not be surprised on appeal by final decision there of issues upon which they have had no opportunity to introduce evidence. And the basic reasons which support this general principle applicable to trial courts make it equally desirable that parties should have an opportunity to offer evidence on the general issues involved in the less formal proceedings before administrative agencies entrusted with the responsibility of fact finding.” Id., at 556.

As we further explained in L. A. Tucker Truck Lines, courts require administrative issue exhaustion “as a general rule” because it is usually “appropriate under [an agency’s] practice” for “contestants in an adversary proceeding” before it to develop fully all issues there. 344 U. S., at 36-37. (We also spoke favorably of issue exhaustion in Unemployment Compensation Comm’n of Alaska v. Aragon, 329 U. S. 143, 154-155 (1946), without relying on any statute or regulation, but in that case the waived issue had not been raised before the District Court, see id., at 149, 155.)

But, as Hormel and L. A. Tucker Truck Lines suggest, the desirability of a court imposing a requirement of issue exhaustion depends on the degree to which the analogy to normal adversarial litigation applies in a particular administrative proceeding. Cf. McKart v. United States, 395 U. S. 185, 193 (1969) (application of doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies “requires an understanding of its purposes and of the particular administrative scheme involved”); Salfi, 422 U. S., at 765 (same). Where the parties are expected to develop the issues in an adversarial administrative proceeding, it seems to us that the rationale for requiring issue exhaustion is at its greatest. Hormel, L. A. Tucker Truck Linee, and Aragon each involved an adversarial proceeding. See Hormel, supra, at 554, 556; L. A. Tucker Truck Lines, supra, at 36; Aragon v. Unemployment Compensation Comm’n of Alaska, 149 F. 2d 447, 449-452 (CA9 1945), aff’d in part and reVd in part, 329 U. S. 143 (1946). (In Hormel, we allowed an exception to the issue-exhaustion requirement. 312 U. S., at 560.) Where, by contrast, an administrative proceeding is not adversarial, we think the reasons for a court to require issue exhaustion are much weaker. More generally, we have observed that “it is well settled that there are wide differences between administrative agencies and courts,” Shepard v. NLRB, 459 U. S. 344, 351 (1983), and we have thus warned against reflexively “assimilating] the relation of . . . administrative bodies and the courts to the relationship between lower and upper courts,” FCC v. Pottsville Broadcasting Co., 309 U. S. 134, 144 (1940).

B

The differences between courts and agencies are nowhere more pronounced than in Social Security proceedings. Although “[m]any agency systems of adjudication are based to a significant extent on the judicial model of decisionmaking,” 2 K. Davis & R. Pierce, Administrative Law Treatise §9.10, p. 103 (3d ed. 1994), the SSA is “[pjerhaps the best example of an agency” that is not, B. Schwartz, Administrative Law 469-470 (4th ed. 1994). See id., at 470 (“The most important of [the SSA’s modifications of the judicial model] is the replacement of normal adversary procedure by... the ‘investigatory model’ ” (quoting Friendly, Some Kind of Hearing, 123 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1267,1290 (1975))). Social Security proceedings are inquisitorial rather than adversarial. It is the ALJ’s duty to investigate the facts and develop the arguments both for and against granting benefits, see Richardson v. Perales, 402 U. S. 389, 400-401 (1971), and the Council’s review is similarly broad. The Commissioner has no representative before the ALJ to oppose the claim for benefits, and we have found no indication that he opposes claimants before the Council. See generally Dubin, Torquemada Meets Kafka: The Misapplication of the Issue Exhaustion Doctrine to Inquisitorial Administrative Proceedings, 97 Colum. L. Rev. 1289,1301-1305,1325-1329 (1997).

The regulations make this nature of SSA proceedings quite clear. They expressly provide that the SSA “eon-duct[s] the administrative review process in an informal, nonadversary manner.” 20 CFR § 404.900(b) (1999). They permit — bu.t do not require — the filing of a brief with the Council (even when the Council grants review), §404.975, and the Council’s review is plenary unless it states otherwise, § 404.976(a). See also § 404.900(b) (“[W]e will consider at each step of the review process any information you present as well as all the information in our records”). The Commissioner’s involvement in the Appeals Council’s decision whether to grant review appears to be not as a litigant opposing the claimant, but rather just as an adviser to the Council regarding which cases are good candidates for the Council to review pursuant to its authority to review a case sua sponte. See §§404.969(b)-(e); Perales, supra, at 403. The regulations further make clear that the Council will “evaluate the entire record,” including “new and material evidence,” in determining whether to grant review. § 404.970(b). Similarly, the notice of decision that ALJ’s provide unsuccessful claimants informs them that if they request review, the Council will “consider all of [the ALJ’s] decision, even the parts with which you may agree,” and that the Council might review the decision “even if you do not ask it to do so.” App. 25-27. Finally, Form HA-520, which the Commissioner considers adequate for the Council’s purposes in determining whether to review a case, see § 422.205(a), provides only three lines for the request for review, and a notice accompanying the form estimates that it will take only 10 minutes to “read the instructions, gather the necessary facts and fill out the form.” The form therefore strongly suggests that the Council does not depend much, if at all, on claimants to identify issues for review. Given that a large portion of Social Security claimants either have no representation at all or are represented by non-attorneys, see Dubin, supra, at 1294, n. 29, the lack of such dependence is entirely understandable.

Thus, the Hormel analogy to judicial proceedings is at its weakest in this area. The adversarial development of issues by the parties — the “eom[ing] to issue,” 812 U. S., at 556— on which that analogy depends simply does not exist. The Council, not the claimant, has primary responsibility for identifying and developing the issues. We therefore agree with the Eighth Circuit that “the general rule [of issue exhaustion] makes little sense in this particular context.” Harwood, 186 P. 3d, at 1042.

Accordingly, we hold that a judicially created issue-exhaustion requirement is inappropriate. Claimants who exhaust administrative remedies need not also exhaust issues in a request for review by the Appeals Council in order to preserve judicial review of those issues. The judgment of the Fifth Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

It is so ordered.

Justice O’Connor,

concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.

In most cases, an issue not presented to an administrative decisionmaker cannot be argued for the first time in federal court. On this underlying principle of administrative law, the Court is unanimous. See ante, at 108; post, at 114-115 (Breyer, J., dissenting). In the absence of a specific statute or regulation requiring issue exhaustion, however, such a rule is not always appropriate. The inquiry requires careful examination of “the characteristics of the particular administrative procedure provided.” McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U. S. 140, 146 (1992). The Court’s opinion provides such an examination, and reaches the correct result. Accordingly, I join Parts I and II-A of the Court’s opinion, as well as its judgment. I write separately because, in my view, the agency’s failure to notify claimants of an issue exhaustion requirement in this context is a sufficient basis for our decision. Requiring issue exhaustion is particularly inappropriate here, where the regulations and procedures of the Social Security Administration (SSA) affirmatively suggest that specific issues need not be raised before the Appeals Council.

Although the SSA’s regulations warn claimants that completely failing to request Appeals Council review will forfeit the right to seek judicial review, see 20 CPR § 404.900(b) (1999), the regulations provide no notice that claimants must also raise specific issues before the Appeals Council to preserve them for review in federal court, see ante, at 108 (SSA regulations do not require issue exhaustion). To the contrary, the relevant regulations and procedures indicate that issue exhaustion before the Appeals Council is not required. To request Appeals Council review, a claimant need not file a brief. See §404.975. Rather, he can file either Form HA-520, “Request for Review of Hearing Decision/Order,” or “any other writing specifically requesting review.” § 422.205(a). Form HA-520, the suggested means of requesting review, provides only three lines (roughly two inches) for the statement of issues and grounds for appeal, and the SSA estimates that it should take a total of 10 minutes to read the instructions, collect the relevant information, and complete the form, see 58 Fed. Reg. 28596 (1993); ante, at 111-112. Moreover, Appeals Council review is plenary unless the Council informs the claimant otherwise in writing, see § 404.976(a); as the notice of decision of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) to petitioner stated, if she requested review before the Appeals Council, “the Council will consider all of [the ALJ’s] decision .... Requesting review places the entire record of your ease before the Council.” See App. 26-27.

Justice Breyer concedes that these factors “might mislead the Social Security claimant” to believe that issue exhaustion is not required. Post, at 118 (dissenting opinion). He nonetheless contends that this is not a problem because the SSA has assured the Court that it “has not invoked [issue exhaustion] in suits brought by claimants who were unrepresented during the Appeals Council proceedings.” Brief for Respondent 41-42. As a matter of past practice, the agency’s statement appears to be inaccurate. See Owens v. Apfel, No. 1:98CV1442 (ND Ohio, Aug. 8, 1999), vacated on other grounds, 205 F. 3d 1341 (CA6 2000). But even if this stated policy were uniformly followed, I think it would be unwise to adopt a rule that imposes different issue exhaustion obligations depending on whether claimants are represented by counsel.

In this case, the SSA told petitioner (1) that she could request review by sending a letter or filling out a 1-page form that should take 10 minutes to complete, (2) only that failing to request Appeals Council review would preclude judicial review, and (3) that the Appeals Council would review her entire case for issues. She did everything that the agency asked of her. I would not impose any additional requirements, and would reverse the judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Justice Breyer,

with whom The Chief Justice, Justice Scalia, and Justice Kennedy join, dissenting.

Under ordinary principles of administrative law a reviewing court will not consider arguments that a party failed to raise in timely fashion before an administrative agency. See United States v. L. A Tucker Truck Lines, Inc., 344 XL S. 33, 36-37 (1952); Unemployment Compensation Comrn’n of Alaska v. Aragon, 329 U. S. 143, 155 (1946); Hormel v. Helvering, 312 U. S. 552, 556-557 (1941); see also 2 K. Davis & R. Pierce, Administrative Law Treatise § 15.8, pp. 341-344 (3d ed. 1994). As this Court explained long ago:

“[OJrderly procedure and good administration require that objections to the proceedings of an administrative agency be made while it has opportunity for correction in order to raise issues reviewable by the courts. . . . [Cjourts should not topple over administrative decisions unless the administrative body not only has erred but has erred against objection made at the time appropriate under its practice.” L. A. Tucker Truck Lines, supra, at 37.

Although the rule has exceptions, it applies with particular force where resolution of the claim significantly depends upon specialized agency knowledge or practice. In this case, petitioner asked the reviewing court to consider arguments of the kind that clearly fall within the general rule, namely, whether an administrative law judge should have ordered a further medical examination or asked different questions of a vocational expert. No one claims that any established exception to this ordinary “exhaustion” or “waiver” rule applies. See, e. g., Bethesda Hospital Assn. v. Bowen, 485 U. S. 399,406-407 (1988) (futility); Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U. S. 319, 329, n. 10 (1976) (constitutional claims).

The Court nonetheless concludes that the law requires a new exception. It points out that the ordinary waiver rule as applied to administrative agencies “is an analogy to the rule that appellate courts will not consider arguments not raised before trial courts.” Ante, at 108-109. And the plurality argues that the agency proceedings here at issue, unlike those before trial courts, are not adversarial proceedings. Ante, at 110-112. Although I agree with both propositions, I do not see how they lead to the plurality’s conclusion.

There are, of course, important differences between a eourt and an administrative agency, but those differences argue in favor of, not against, applying the waiver principle here. Cf. SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U. S. 80, 88-95 (1943). As this Court has explained, the law ordinarily insists that a party invoke administrative processes before coming to eourt in order to avoid premature interruption of the administrative process and to enable the expert agency to develop the necessary facts. MoKart v. United States, 395 U. S. 185, 193-194 (1969). In addition, exhaustion is required because a

“complaining party may be successful in vindicating his rights in the administrative process. If he is required to pursue his administrative remedies, the courts may never have to intervene. And notions of administrative autonomy require that the agency be given a chance to discover and correct its own errors. Finally, it is possible that frequent and deliberate flouting of administrative processes could weaken the effectiveness of an agency by encouraging people to ignore its procedures.” Id., at 195.

Certain of these reasons apply with equal force to courts and to administrative agencies. Others, such as the notion of “administrative autonomy,” apply with special force to agencies. None of them applies only to courts. Practical considerations arising out of the agency’s familiarity with the subject matter as well as institutional considerations caution strongly against courts’ deciding ordinary, circumstance-specific matters that the parties have not raised before the agency — at least where there is no good reason excusing that failure. These considerations apply where a party fails to give an agency an opportunity to correct its own mistake, i. e., to a failure to raise a matter on an internal agency appeal, just as they apply to a failure ever to raise the matter at all. See id., at 194 (exhaustion principles apply equally where “administrative process is at an end and a party seeks judicial review of a decision that was not appealed through the administrative process”).

I would add that these ordinary “exhaustion of remedies” rules are particularly important in Social Security cases, where the Appeals Council is asked to process over 100,000 claims each year, Social Security Administration Office of Hearings and Appeals, Key Workload Indicators — Fiscal Year 1999, p. 21 (115,151 requests for Appeals Council review), where many of those cases ultimately find their way to federal court, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, L. Meeham, Judicial Business of the United States Courts: 1998 Report of the Director 144 (Table C-2) (over' 14,000 cases in fiscal year 1998), and where the Social Security Act itself stresses their applicability, 42 U. S. C. §§ 405(g), (h). See generally Shalala v. Illinois Council on Long Term Care, Inc., 529 U. S. 1,12-13 (2000); Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U. S. 749, 765-766 (1975).

Nor, with one exception, do I see why the nonadversarial nature of the Social Security Administration internal appellate process makes a difference. An initial ALJ proceeding is, after all, itself nonadversarial. Ante, at 111 (although claimant may be represented by counsel, the agency itself has no representative present and relies upon the ALJ to “investigate the facts and develop the arguments both for and against granting benefits”). Yet I assume the plurality would not forgive the requirement that a party ordinarily must raise all relevant issues before the ALJ. Cf. Shalala, supra, at 15 (noting statute’s “nonwaivable and nonexcusable requirement that an individual present a claim to the agency before raising it in court”).

Neither does the law in this area disfavor informal proceedings. See Hormel, 312 U. S., at 556 (“And the basic reasons which support th[e] general principle [of waiver] applicable to trial courts make it equally desirable that parties should have an opportunity to offer evidence on the general issues involved in the less formal proceedings before administrative agencies entrusted with the responsibility of fact finding” (emphasis added)). Considerations of time and expense can favor such proceedings. And, since a Social Security claimant is permitted his own counsel or other representative if he wishes, the informality does not necessarily work to his disadvantage. Indeed, the plurality’s rule, by interfering with the ordinary ALJ/Appeals Council/District Court order for presenting agency-specific arguments, threatens to complicate judicial review, thereby producing increased delay without any benefit to the agency or to the claimants themselves.

There is, however, one exception, i. e., one way in which the informality of the proceedings may matter. Administrative lawyers are normally aware of the basic “exhaustion of remedies” rules, including the specific waiver principle here at issue. But the internal appellate review proceeding’s informality; the absence of a clear statement in the rules or on the Appeals Council instructional form insisting upon the raising of all, not just some, issues; the presence on the instructional form of just a few lines for the listing of issues; and an attached estimate that on average an appellant can “read the instructions, gather the necessary facts and fill out the form” in 10 minutes, see Form HA-520 — taken together — might mislead the Social Security claimant. That is, it might make the claimant believe he need not raise every issue before the Appeals Council. Ante, at 113-114 (O’Con-nor, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment).

But the Social Security Administration says that it does not apply its waiver rule where the claimant is not represented. Brief for Respondent 41-42. And I cannot say it is “arbitrary, capricious, [or] an abuse of discretion,” 5 U. S. C. §706(2)(A), to apply the waiver rule when a claimant was represented before the Appeals Council, as was petitioner, by an attorney. Petitioner’s lawyer should have known the basic legal principle: namely, that, with important exceptions, a claimant must raise his objections in an internal agency appellate proceeding or forgo the opportunity later to raise them in court. The Fifth Circuit, moreover, had precedent applying the general rule in this specific context. Paul v. Shalala, 29 F. 3d 208,210-211 (1994). And far from being misled by the agency’s form, petitioner’s lawyer followed an alternative procedure, see 20 CFR §§ 422.205(a), 404.968(a) (1999), and filed 19 pages of detailed legal and factual arguments challenging the ALJ’s decision. App. 51-69. In these circumstances, petitioner is accountable for her lawyer’s decision — whether neglectful or by design — to reserve some of her objections for federal court.

For these reasons, I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

       We agree with the parties that, even were a court-imposed issue-exhaustion requirement proper, the Fifth Circuit erred in treating it as jurisdictional. Cf Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U. S. 819, 328 (1976).

       Part 404 of 20 CFR (1999) applies to Title II of the Act. The regulations governing Title XVI, which can be found at 20 CFR pt. 416 (1999), are, as relevant here, not materially different. We will therefore omit references to the latter regulations.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Justice Breyer

license: Public Domain

text:
    CASTILLO et al. v. UNITED STATES
    No. 99-658.
    Argued April 24, 2000 —
    Decided June 5, 2000

      Bkeyer, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Stevens, O’Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, and Ginsburg, JJ., joined, and in which Scalia, J., joined except as to point Fourth of Part II.

      Stephen P. Halbrook argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were John F. Carroll, Richard G. Ferguson, Stanley Rentz, and Steven R. Rosen.

      Assistant Attorney General Robinson argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Waxman, Deputy Solicitor General Dreeben, Edward C. DuMont, and Joseph C. Wyderko.

      Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for Law Enforcement Alliance of America, Inc., by Richard E. Gardiner; and for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers et al. by Ann C. McClintock, Kyle O’Dowd, and Barbara Bergman.

   Justice Breyer

delivered the opinion of the Court.

In this case we once again decide whether words in a federal criminal statute create offense elements (determined by a jury) or sentencing factors (determined by a judge). See Jones v. United States, 526 U. S. 227 (1999); Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U. S. 224 (1998). The statute in question, 18 U. S. C. § 924(c) (1988 ed., Supp. V), prohibits the use or carrying of a "firearm” in relation to a crime of violence, and increases the penalty dramatically when the weapon used or carried is, for example, a “maehinegun.” We conclude that the statute uses the word “machinegun” (and similar words) to state an element of a separate offense.

i — i

Petitioners are members of the Branch-Davidian religious sect and are among those who were involved in a violent confrontation with federal agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms near Waco, Texas, in 1993. The ease before us arises out of an indictment alleging that, among other things, petitioners conspired to murder federal officers. At the time of petitioners’ trial, the criminal statute at issue (reprinted in its entirety in the Appendix, infra) read in relevant part:

"(c)(1) Whoever, during and in relation to any crime of violence ..., uses or carries a firearm, shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such crime of violence ..., be sentenced to imprisonment for five years, and if the firearm is a short-barreled rifle [or a] short-barreled shotgun to imprisonment for ten years, and if the firearm is a maehinegun, or a destructive device, or is equipped with a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, to imprisonment for thirty years.” 18 U. S. C. § 924(c)(1) (1988 ed., Supp. V).

A jury determined that petitioners had violated this section by, in the words of the trial judge’s instruction, “knowingly us[ing] or carr[ying] a firearm during and in relation to” the commission of a crime of violence. App. 29. At sentencing, the judge found that the “firearms” at issue included certain machineguns (many equipped with silencers) and handgre-nades that the defendants actually or constructively had possessed. United States v. Branch, Crim. No. W-93-CR-046 (WD Tex., June 21,1994), reprinted in App. to Pet. for Cert. 119a, 124a~125a. The judge then imposed the statute’s mandatory 30-year prison sentence. Id., at 134a.

Petitioners appealed. Meanwhile, this Court decided that the word “use” in § 924(c)(1) requires evidence of more than “mere possession.” Bailey v. United States, 516 U. S. 137, 143 (1995). The Court of Appeals subsequently held that our decision in Bailey necessitated a remand of the ease to determine whether, in Bailey’s stronger sense of “use,” petitioners had used “maehineguns and other enhancing weapons.” United States v. Branch, 91 F. 3d 699, 740-741 (CA5 1996). The court also concluded that statutory words such as “machinegun” create sentencing factors, i. e., factors that enhance a sentence, not elements of a separate crime. Id., at 738-740. Hence, it specified that the jury “was not required” to determine whether petitioners used or carried “maehineguns” or other enhanced weapons. Id., at 740. Rather, it wrote that “[sjhould the district court find on remand that members of the conspiracy actively employed maehineguns, it is free to reimpose the 30-year sentence.” Id., at 740-741 (emphasis added). On remand, the District Court resenteneed petitioners to 30-year terms of imprisonment based on its weapons-related findings. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 119a. The Court of Appeals affirmed. 179 F. 3d 321 (CA5 1999).

The Federal Courts of Appeals have different views as to whether the statutory word “machinegun’’ (and similar words appearing in the version of 18 U. S. C. § 924(c)(1) here at issue) refers to a sentencing factor to be assessed by the trial court or creates a new substantive crime to be determined by the jury. Compare, e. g., United States v. Alborola-Rodriguez, 153 F. 3d 1269, 1272 (CA11 1998) (sentencing factor), with United States v. Alerta, 96 F. 3d 1230, 1235 (CA91996) (element). We granted certiorari to resolve the conflict.

II

The question before us is whether Congress intended the statutory references to particular firearm types in § 924(e)(1) to define a separate crime or simply to authorize an enhanced penalty. If the former, the indictment must identify the firearm type and a jury must find that element proved beyond a reasonable doubt. If the latter, the matter need not be tried before a jury but may be left for the sentencing judge to decide. As petitioners note, our decision in Jones concluded, in a similar situation, that treating facts that lead to an increase in the maximum sentence as a sentencing factor would give rise to significant constitutional questions. See 526 U. S., at 239-252. Here, even apart from the doctrine of constitutional doubt, our consideration of § 924(c)(l)’s language, structure, context, history, and such other factors as typically help courts determine a statute’s objectives, leads us to conclude that the relevant words create a separate substantive crime.

First, while the statute’s literal language, taken alone, appears neutral, its overall structure strongly favors the “new crime” interpretation. The relevant statutory sentence says: ‘Whoever, during and in relation to any crime of violence . .., uses or carries a firearm, shall... be sentenced to imprisonment for five years, and if the firearm is a . . . machinegun, ... to imprisonment for thirty years.” § 924(c)(1). On the one hand, one could read the words “during and in relation to a crime of violence” and “uses or carries a firearm” as setting forth two basic elements of the offense, and the subsequent “machinegun” phrase as merely increasing a defendant’s sentence in relevant cases. But, with equal ease, by emphasizing the phrase “if the firearm is a...,” one can read the language as simply substituting the word “machinegun” for the initial word “firearm”; thereby both incorporating by reference the initial phrases that relate the basic elements of the crime and creating a different crime containing one new element, i. e., the use or carrying of a “machinegun” during and in relation to a crime of violence.

The statute’s structure clarifies any ambiguity inherent in its literal language. The first part of the opening sentence clearly and indisputably establishes the elements of the basic federal offense of using or carrying a gun during and in relation to a crime of violence. See United States v. Rodriguez-Moreno, 526 U. S. 275, 280 (1999). Congress placed the element “uses or carries a firearm” and the word “machinegun” in a single sentence, not broken up with dashes or separated into subsections. Cf. Jones, supra, at 232-233 (noting that the structure of the carjacking statute — a “principal paragraph” followed by “numbered subsections” — makes it “look” as though the statute sets forth sentencing factors). The next three sentences of § 924(e)(1) (which appear after the sentence quoted above (see Appendix, infra)) refer directly to sentencing: the first to recidivism, the second to concurrent sentences, the third to parole. These structural features strongly suggest that the basic job of the entire first sentence is the definition of crimes and the role of the remaining three is the description of factors (such as recidivism) that ordinarily pertain only to sentencing.

We concede that there are two other structural circumstances that suggest a contrary interpretation. The title of the entirety of § 924 is 'Tenalties”; and in 1998 Congress reenacted § 924(e)(1), separating different parts of the first sentence (and others) into different subsections, see Pub. L. 105-386, § 1(a)(1), 112 Stat. 3469. In this ease, however, the section’s title cannot help, for Congress already has determined that at least some portion of §924, including § 924(c) itself, creates, not penalty enhancements, but entirely new crimes. See S. Rep. No. 98-225, pp. 312-314 (1984) (“Section 924(e) sets out an offense distinct from the underlying felony and is not simply a penalty provision”); see also Busic v. United States, 446 U. S. 398,404 (1980); Simpson v. United States, 435 U. S. 6, 10 (1978). The title alone does not tell us which are which. Nor can a new postenactment statutory restructuring help us here to determine what Congress intended at the time it enacted the earlier statutory provision that governs this ease. See Almendarez-Torres, 523 U. S., at 237 (amendments that, among other things, neither “declare the meaning of earlier law” nor “seek to clarify an earlier enaeted general term” fail to provide interpretive guidance).

Second, we cannot say that courts have typically or traditionally used firearm types (such as “shotgun” or “machine-gun”) as sentencing factors, at least not in respect to an underlying “use or carry” crime. See Jones, supra, at 234 (“[Statutory drafting occurs against a backdrop... of traditional treatment of certain categories of important facts”); see also Almendarez-Torres, supra, at 230 (recidivism “is as typical a sentencing factor as one might imagine”). Traditional sentencing factors often involve either characteristics of the offender, such as recidivism, or special features of the manner in which a basic crime was carried out (e. g., that the defendant abused a position of trust or brandished a gun). See 18 U. S. C. § 3553(a)(1) (providing that a sentencing court “shall” consider “the history and characteristics of the defendant” and “the nature and circumstances of the offense”); see also, e. g., United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual §4A1.1 (Nov. 1998) (sentence based in part on defendant’s criminal history); § 3B1.3 (upward adjustment for abuse of position of trust); § 5K2.6 (same for use of a dangerous instrumentality). Offender characteristics are not here at issue. And, although one might consider the use of a ma-ehinegun, or for that matter a firearm, as a means (or a manner) in which the offender carried out the more basic underlying crime of violence, the underlying crime of violence is not the basic crime here at issue. Rather, as we have already mentioned, the use or carrying of a firearm is itself a separate substantive crime. See Busic, supra, at 404; Simpson, supra, at 10.

The Government argues that, conceptually speaking, one can refer to the use of a machinegun as simply a “metho[d]” of committing the underlying “firearms offense.” Brief for United States 23. But the difference between carrying, say, a pistol and carrying a machinegun (or, to mention another factor in the same statutory sentence, a “destructive device,” i e., a bomb) is great, both in degree and kind. And, more importantly, that difference concerns the nature of the element lying closest to the heart of the crime at issue. It is not surprising that numerous gun crimes make substantive distinctions between weapons such as pistols and machine-guns. See, e. g., 18 U. S. C. § 922(a)(4) (making it unlawful to "transport in interstate or foreign commerce” any “destructive device,” “machine gun,” or similar type of weapon unless carrier is licensed or authorized, but making no such prohibition for pistols); § 922(b)(4) (prohibiting the unauthorized sale or delivery of “machine gun[s]” and similar weapons); §922(o)(l) (making it “unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machine gun”); § 922(v)(l) (making it illegal “to manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon”). And we do not have any indication that legislatures or judges typically have viewed the difference between using a pistol and using a machinegun as insubstantial. Indeed, the fact that (a) the statute at issue prescribes a mandatory penalty for using or carrying a machinegun that is six times more severe than the punishment for using or carrying a mere “firearm,” and (b) at least two Courts of Appeals have interpreted § 924(c)(1) as setting forth a separate “machinegun” element in relevant eases, see Alerta, 96 F. 3d, at 1235; Judicial Committee on Model Jury Instructions for the Eighth Circuit, Manual of Model Criminal Jury Instructions ¶ 6.18.924C (1997 ed.), in L. Sand, J. Siffert, W. Lough-lin, & S. Reiss, Modern Federal Jury Instructions: Criminal Pattern Instructions, p. 8-153 (1999), points to the conclusion that the difference between the act of using or carrying a “firearm” and the act of using or carrying a “machinegun” is both substantive and substantial — a conclusion that supports a “separate crime” interpretation.

Third, to ask a jury, rather than a judge, to decide whether a defendant used or carried a machinegun would rarely complicate a trial or risk unfairness. Cf. Almendarez-Torres, supra, at 234-235 (pointing to potential unfairness of placing fact of recidivism before jury). As a practical matter, in determining whether a defendant used or carried a “firearm,” the jury ordinarily will be asked to assess the particular weapon at issue as well as the circumstances under which it was allegedly used. Furthermore, inasmuch as the prosecution’s ease under § 924(e) usually will ihvolve presenting a certain weapon (or weapons) to the jury and arguing that the defendant used or carried that weapon during a crime of violence within the meaning of the statute, the evidence is unlikely to enable a defendant to respond both (1) “I did not use or carry any firearm,” and (2) “even if I did, it was a pistol, not a maehinegun.” Hence, a rule of law that makes it difficult to make both claims at the same time to the same decisionmaker (the jury) will not often prejudice a defendant’s case.

At the same time, a contrary rule — one that leaves the maehinegun matter to the sentencing judge — might unnecessarily produce a conflict between the judge and the jury. That is because, under our case law interpreting the statute here at issue, a jury may well have to decide which of several weapons the defendant actively used, rather than passively possessed. See Bailey, 516 U. S., at 143. And, in such a case, the sentencing judge will not necessarily know which “firearm” supports the jury’s determination. Under these circumstances, a judge’s later, sentencing-related decision that the defendant used the maehinegun, rather than, say, the pistol, might conflict with the jury’s belief that he actively used the pistol, which factual belief underlay its firearm “use” conviction. Cf. Alerta, supra, at 1234-1235 (in the absence of a specific jury finding regarding the type of weapon that defendant used, it was possible that the jury , did not find “use” of a maehinegun even though the judge imposed the 30-year mandatory statutory sentence). There is no reason to think that Congress would have wanted a judge’s views to prevail in a ease of so direct a factual conflict, particularly when the sentencing judge applies a lower standard of proof and when 25 additional years in prison are at stake.

Fourth, the Government argues that the legislative history of the statute favors interpreting § 924(e) as setting forth sentencing factors, not elements. It points out that § 924(c), as originally enacted, provided a mandatory minimum prison term of at least one year (up to a maximum of 10 years) where a person (1) “use[d] a firearm to commit any felony,” or (2) “carried] a firearm unlawfully during the commission of any felony.” Gun Control Act of 1968, § 102, 82 Stat. 1223; see also Omnibus Crime Control Act of 1970, §13, 84 Stat. 1889. In 1984, Congress amended the law, eliminating the range of permissible penalties, setting a mandatory prison term of five years, and specifying that that term was to be added on top of the prison term related to the underlying “crime of violence,” including statutory sentences that imposed certain other weapons-related enhancements. See Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, § 1005(a), 98 Stat. 2138. In 1986, Congress again amended the law by providing for a 10-year mandatory prison term (20 years for subsequent offenses) “if the firearm is a machinegun, or is equipped with a firearm silencer or firearm muffler.” Firearms Owners’ Protection Act, § 104(a)(2), 100 Stat. 456. .In 1988, Congress changed the provision to its here-relevant form. Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, § 6460, 102 Stat. 4373.

The Government finds three features of the history surrounding the enactment of the key 1986 version of the statute significant. First, the House Report spoke in terms of a sentence, not an offense. The Report stated, for example, that the relevant bill would create “a new mandatory prison term of ten years for using or carrying a machine gun during and in relation to a crime of violence or a drug trafficking offense for a first offense, and twenty years for a subsequent offense.” H. R. Rep. No. 99-495, p. 28 (1986); see also id., at 2 (bill “[provides a mandatory prison term of ten years for using or carrying a machine gun during and in relation to a crime of violence or a drug trafficking offense, and a mandatory twenty years for any subsequent offense”). Second, statements of the bill’s sponsors and supporters on the floor of the House also spoke in terms of sentencing, noting, for example, that the proposed law “imposes mandatory prison terms on those [who] would use a maehinegun in the commission of a violent offense.” 132 Cong. Rec. 3809 (1986) (statement of Rep. Hughes); see also, e. g., id., at 6843 (statement of Rep. Yolkmer) (bill “includes stiff mandatory sentences for the use of firearms, including maehineguns and silencers, in relation to violent or drug trafficking crimes”); id., at 6850 (statement of Rep. Moore) (maehinegun clause “strengthen^] criminal penalties”); id., at 6856 (statement of Rep. Wirth) (proposed law “would have many benefits, including the expansion of mandatory sentencing to those persons who use a maehinegun in the commission of a violent crime”). Third, and similarly, “any discussion suggesting the creation of a new offense” was “[n]oticeably absent” from the legislative record. 91 F. 3d, at 739; Brief for United States 36.

Insofar as this .history may be relevant, however, it does not significantly help the Government. That is because the statute’s basic “uses or carries a firearm” provision also dealt primarily with sentencing, its pre-eminent feature consisting of the creation of a new mandatory term of imprisonment additional to that for the underlying crime of violence. Cf. Bailey, supra, at 142 (“Section 924(e)(1) requires the imposition of specified penalties”); Smith v. United States, 508 U. S. 223, 227 (1993) (same). In this context, the absence of “separate offense” statements means little, and the “mandatory sentencing” statements to which the Government points show only that Congress believed that the “maehinegun” and “firearm” provisions would work similarly. Indeed, the legislative statements that discuss a new prison term for the act of “us[ing] a machine gun,” see, e. g., supra this page, seemingly describe offense conduct, and, thus, argue against (not for) the Government’s position.

.Fifth and finally, the length and severity of an added mandatory sentence that turns on the presence or absence of a “maehinegun” (or any of the other listed firearm types) weighs in favor of treating such offense-related words as referring to an element. Thus, if after considering traditional interpretive factors, we were left genuinely uncertain as to Congress’ intent in this regard, we would assume a preference for traditional jury determination of so important a factual matter. Cf. Staples v. United States, 511 U. S. 600, 619, n. 17 (1994) (rule of lenity requires that “ambiguous criminal statute[s]... be construed in favor of the accused”); United States v. Granderson, 511U. S. 39, 54 (1994) (similar); United States v. Bass, 404 U. S. 336, 347 (1971) (same).

These considerations, in our view, make this a stronger “separate crime” case than either Jones or Almendarez-Torres — cases in which we were closely divided as to Congress’ likely intent. For the reasons stated, we believe that Congress intended the firearm type-related words it used in § 924(c)(1) to refer to an element of a separate, aggravated crime. Accordingly, we reverse the contrary determination of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

APPENDIX TO OPINION OF THE COURT

“§ 924. Penalties.

“(e)(1) Whoever, during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime (including a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime which provides for an enhanced punishment if committed by the use of a deadly or dangerous weapon or device) for which he may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, uses or carries a firearm, shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such crime of violence or drug trafficking crime, be sentenced to imprisonment for five years, and if the firearm is a short-barreled rifle [or a] short-barreled shotgun to imprisonment for ten years, and if the firearm is a machinegun, or a destructive device, or is equipped with a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, to imprisonment for thirty years. In the case of his second or subsequent conviction under this subsection, such person shall be sentenced to imprisonment for twenty years, and if the firearm is a machinegun, or a destructive device, or is equipped with a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, to life imprisonment without release. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the court shall not place on probation or suspend the sentence of any person convicted of a violation of this subsection, nor shall the term of imprisonment imposed under this subsection run concurrently with any other term of imprisonment including that imposed for the crime of violence or drug trafficking crime in which the firearm was used or carried. No person sentenced under this subsection shall be eligible for parole during the term of imprisonment imposed herein.” 18 U. S. C. § 924(c)(1) (1988 ed., Supp. V) (footnote omitted).

      Justice Scalia joins this opinion except as to point Fourth of Part II.


author: Justice O’Connor Justice Ginsburg,

text:
    REEVES v. SANDERSON PLUMBING PRODUCTS, INC.
    No. 99-536.
    Argued March 21, 2000 —
    Decided June 12, 2000

      O’Connor, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Ggns-BURG, J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 154.

      Jim Waide argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were David A. Chandler, Victor I. Fleitas, Eric Schnapper, and Alan B. Morrison.

      Patricia A. Millett argued the cause for the United States et al. as amici curiae urging reversal. On the brief were Solicitor General Waxman, Deputy Solicitor General Underwood, Matthew D. Roberts, C. Gregory Stewart, and Philip B. Sklover.

      Taylor B. Smith argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Berkley N. Huskison.

      Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the AARP by Thomas W. Osborne, Laurie A McCann, Sally Dunaway, and Melvin Radowitz; for the Association of Trial Lawyers of America by Jeffrey Robert White; for the Hispanic National Bar Association by Seth J. Benezra, Luis Perez, and Gilbert M. Roman; for the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law et al. by Daniel F. Kolb, Norman Redlich, Barbara R. Amwine, Thomas J. Henderson, Richard T Seymour, Teresa A Ferrante, Elainy R. Jones, Theodore M. Shaw, Norman J. Chachkin, Charles Stephen Ralston, Dennis C. Hayes, Antonia Hernandez, Judith L. Lichtman, Donna R. Lenhoff, Marcia D. Greenberger, Judith C. Appelbaum, Martha F. Davis, Sara L. Mandelbaum, and Steven R. Shapiro; and for the National Employment Lawyers Association by Paul W. Mollica and Paula A Brantner.

      Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the Alabama Retail Association by John J. Coleman HI and Marcel L. Debruge; for the Chamber of Commerce of the United States by Marshall B. Babson, Stan

        ley Strauss, Stephen A, Bokat, and Robin S. Conrad; for the Equal Employment Advisory Council by Ann Elizabeth Reesman; for the Product Liability Advisory Council, Inc., by Andrew L. Frey, Charles Rothfeld, and Stephen M. Shapiro; for the Society for Human Resource Management by Peter J. Petesch, Thomas J. Walsh, Jr., Timothy S. Bland, and John E. Duvall; and for the Texas Association of Business and Chamber of Commerce by Dean J. Schaner and Scott M. Nelson.

   Justice O’Connor

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case concerns the kind and amount of evidence necessary to sustain a jury’s verdict that an employer unlawfully discriminated on the basis of age. Specifically, we must resolve whether a defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law when the plaintiff’s case consists exclusively of a prima facie case of discrimination and sufficient evidence for the trier of fact to disbelieve the defendant’s legitimate, nondiseriminatory explanation for its action. We must also decide whether the employer was entitled to judgment as a matter of law under the particular circumstances presented here.

I

In October 1995, petitioner Roger Reeves was 57 years old and had spent 40 years in the employ of respondent, Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., a manufacturer of toilet seats and covers. 197 P. 3d 688,690 (CA5 1999). Petitioner worked in a department known as the “Hinge Room,” where he supervised the “regular line.” Ibid. Joe Oswalt, in his mid-thirties, supervised the Hinge Room’s “special line,” and Russell Caldwell, the manager of the Hinge Room and age 45, supervised both petitioner and Oswalt. Ibid. Petitioner’s responsibilities included recording the attendance and hours of those under his supervision, and reviewing a weekly report that listed the hours worked by each employee. 3 Record 38-40.

In the summer of 1995, Caldwell informed Powe Chesnut, the director of manufacturing and the husband of company president Sandra Sanderson, that “production was down” in the Hinge Room because employees were often absent and were “coming in late and leaving early” 4 id., at 203-204. Because the monthly attendance reports did not indicate a problem, Chesnut ordered an audit of the Hinge Room’s timesheets for July, August, and September of that year. 197 F. 3d, at 690. According to Chesnut’s testimony, that investigation revealed “numerous timekeeping errors and misrepresentations on the part of Caldwell, Reeves, and Os-walt.” Ibid. Following the audit, Chesnut, along with Dana Jester, vice president of human resources, and Tom Whitaker, vice president of operations, recommended to company president Sanderson that petitioner and Caldwell be fired. Id., at 690-691. In October 1995, Sanderson followed the recommendation and discharged both petitioner and Caldwell. Id., at 691.

In June 1996, petitioner filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, con-tending that he had been fired because of his age in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), 81 Stat. 602, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 621 et seq. At trial, respondent contended that it had fired petitioner due to his failure to maintain accurate attendance records, while petitioner attempted to demonstrate that respondent’s explanation was pretext for age discrimination. 197 F. 3d, at 692-693. Petitioner introduced evidence that he had accurately recorded the attendance and hours of the employees under his supervision, and that Chesnut, whom Oswalt described as wielding “absolute power” within the company, 3 Record 80, had demonstrated age-based animus in his dealings with petitioner. 197 F. 3d,- at 693.

During the trial, the District Court twice denied oral motions by respondent for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the case went to the jury. 3 Record 183; 4 id., at 354. The court instructed the jury that “[i]f the plaintiff fails to prove age was a determinative or motivating factor in the decision to terminate him, then your verdict shall he for the defendant.” Tr. 7 (Jury Charge) (Sept. 12, 1997). So charged, the jury returned a verdict in favor of petitioner, awarding him $35,000 in compensatory damages, and found that respondent’s age discrimination had been “willfu[l].” 197 F. 3d, at 691. The District Court accordingly entered judgment for petitioner in the amount of $70,000, which included $35,000 in liquidated damages based on the jury’s finding of willfulness. Ibid. Respondent then renewed its motion for judgment as a matter of law and alternatively moved for a new trial, while petitioner moved for front pay. 2 Record, Doc. Nos. 36, 38. The District Court denied respondent’s motions and granted petitioner’s, awarding him $28,490.80 in front pay for two years’ lost income. 2 id., Doe. Nos. 40,41.

The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that petitioner had not introduced sufficient evidence to sustain the jury’s finding of unlawful discrimination. 197 F. 3d, at 694. After noting respondent’s proffered justification for petitioner’s discharge, the eourt acknowledged that petitioner “very well may” have offered sufficient evidence for “a reasonable jury [to] have found that [respondent’s] explanation for its employment decision was pretextual.” Id., at 693. The court explained, however, that this was “not dis-positive” of the ultimate issue — namely, “whether Reeves presented sufficient evidence that his age motivated [respondent’s] employment decision.” Ibid. Addressing this question, the court weighed petitioner’s additional evidence of discrimination against other circumstances surrounding his discharge. See id., at 693-694. Specifically, the eourt noted that Chesnut’s age-based comments “were not made in the direct context of Reeves’s termination”; there was no allegation that the two other individuals who had recommended that petitioner be fired (Jester and Whitaker) were motivated by age; two of the decisionmakers involved in petitioner’s discharge (Jester and Sanderson) were over the age of 50; all three of the Hinge Room supervisors were accused of inaccurate recordkeeping; and several of respondent’s management positions were filled by persons over age 50 when petitioner was fired. Ibid. On this basis, the court concluded that petitioner had not introduced sufficient evidence for a rational jury to conclude that he had been discharged because of his age. Id., at 694.

We granted certiorari, 528 U. S. 985 (1999), to resolve a conflict among the Courts of Appeals as to whether a plaintiff’s prima facie case of discrimination (as defined in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U. S. 792, 802 (1973)), combined with sufficient evidence for a reasonable factfinder to reject the employer’s nondiseriminatory explanation for its decision, is adequate to sustain a finding of liability for intentional discrimination. Compare Kline v. TVA, 128 F. 3d 337 (CA6 1997) (prima facie ease combined with sufficient evidence to disbelieve employer’s explanation always creates jury issue of whether employer intentionally discriminated); Combs v. Plantation Patterns, 106 F. 3d 1519 (CA11 1997) (same), cert. denied, 522 U. S. 1045 (1998); Sheridan v. E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 100 F. 3d 1061 (CA3 1996) (same) (en bane), cert. denied, 521U. S. 1129 (1997); Gaworski v. ITT Commercial Finance Corp., 17 F. 3d 1104 (CA8) (same), cert. denied, 513 U. S. 946 (1994); Anderson v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 13 F. 3d 1120 (CA7 1994) (same); Washington v. Garrett, 10 F. 3d 1421 (CA9 1993) (same), with Aka v. Washington Hospital Center, 156 F. 3d 1284 (CADC 1998) (en banc) (plaintiff’s discrediting of employer’s explanation is entitled to considerable weight, such that plaintiff should not be routinely required to submit evidence over and above proof of pretext), and with Fisher v. Vassar College, 114 F. 3d 1332 (CA2 1997) (en banc) (plaintiff must introduce sufficient evidence for jury to find both that employer’s reason was false and that real reason was discrimination), cert. denied, 522 U. S. 1075 (1998); Rhodes v. Guiberson Oil Tools, 75 F. 3d 989 (CA5 1996) (same); Theard v. Glaxo, Inc., 47 F. 3d 676 (CA4 1995) (same); Woods v. Friction Materials, Inc., 30 P. 3d 255 (CA1 1994) (same).

II

Under the ADEA, it is “unlawful for an employer... to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s age.” 29 U. S. C. § 623(a)(1). When a plaintiff alleges disparate treatment, “liability depends on whether the protected trait (under the ADEA, age) actually motivated the employer’s decision.” Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U. S. 604, 610 (1993). That is, the plaintiff’s age must have “actually played a role in [the employer’s decisionmaking] process and had a determinative influence on the outcome.” Ibid. Recognizing that “the question facing triers of fact in discrimination eases is both sensitive and difficult,” and that “[tjhere will seldom be ‘eyewitness’ testimony as to the employer’s mental processes,” Postal Service Bd. of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U. S. 711, 716 (1983), the Courts of Appeals, including the Fifth Circuit in this case, have employed some variant of the framework articulated in McDonnell Douglas to analyze ADEA claims that are based principally on circumstantial evidence. See, e. g., Stokes v. Westinghouse Savannah River Co., 206 F. 3d 420, 429 (CA4 2000); Galabya v. New York City Bd. of Ed., 202 F. 3d 636, 639 (CA2 2000); Hall v. Giant Food, Inc., 175 F. 3d 1074, 1077-1078 (CADC 1999); Beaird v. Seagate Technology Inc., 145 F. 3d 1159, 1165 (CA10), cert. denied, 525 U. S. 1054 (1998); Hindman v. Transkrit Corp., 145 F. 3d 986, 990-991 (CA8 1998); Turlington v. Atlanta Gas Light Co., 135 F. 3d 1428, 1432 (CA11), cert. denied, 525 U. S. 962 (1998); Keller v. Orix Credit Alliance, Inc.; 130 F. 3d 1101, 1108 (CA31997) (en banc); Kaniff v. Allstate Ins. Co., 121 F. 3d 258, 263 (CA7 1997); Ritter v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 58 F. 3d 454, 456-457 (CA9 1995); Bodenheimer v. PPG Industries, Inc., 5 F. 3d 955, 957 (CA5 1998); Mesnick v. General Elec. Co., 950 F. 2d 816, 823 (CA11991), cert. denied, 504 U. S. 985 (1992); Ackerman v. Diamond Shamrock Corp., 670 F. 2d 66, 69 (CA6 1982). This Court has not squarely addressed whether the McDonnell Douglas framework, developed to assess claims brought under § 703(a)(1) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 255, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-2(a)(l), also applies to ADEA actions. Because the parties do not dispute the issue, we shall assume, arguendo, that the McDonnell Douglas framework is fully applicable here. Cf. O’Connor v. Consolidated Coin Caterers Corp., 517 U. S. 308, 311 (1996).

McDonnell Douglas and subsequent decisions have “established an allocation of the burden of production and an order for the presentation of proof in . . . discriminatory-treatment eases.” St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U. S. 502, 506 (1993). First, the plaintiff must establish a prima facie ease of discrimination. Ibid.; Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U. S. 248, 252-253 (1981). It is undisputed that petitioner satisfied this burden here: (i) at the time he was fired, he was a member of the class protected by the ADEA (“individuals who are at least 40 years of age,” 29 U. S. C. § 631(a)), (ii) he was otherwise qualified for the position of Hinge Room supervisor, (iii) he was discharged by respondent, and (iv) respondent successively hired three persons in their thirties to fill petitioner's position. See 197 F. 3d, at 691-692. The burden therefore shifted to respondent to “producfe) evidence that the plaintiff was rejected, or someone else was preferred, for a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason.” Burdine, supra, at 254. This burden is one of production, not persuasion; it “can involve no credibility assessment.” St. Mary’s Honor Center, supra, at 509. Respondent met this burden by offering admissible evidence sufficient for the trier of fact to conclude that petitioner was fired because of his failure to maintain accurate attendance records. See 197 F. 3d, at 692. Accordingly, “the McDonnell Douglas framework — with its presumptions and burdens” — disappeared, St. Mary’s Honor Center, supra, at 510, and the sole remaining issue was “discrimination vel non,” Aikens, supra, at 714.

Although intermediate evidentiary burdens shift back and forth under this framework, “[t]he ultimate burden of persuading the trier of fact that the defendant intentionally discriminated against the plaintiff remains at all times with the plaintiff.” Burdine, 450 U. S., at 253. And in attempting to satisfy this burden, the plaintiff — once the employer produces sufficient evidence to support a nondiseriminatory explanation for its decision — must be afforded the “opportunity to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the legitimate reasons offered by the defendant were not its true reasons, but were a pretext for discrimination.” Ibid.; see also St Mary’s Honor Center, supra, at 507-508. That is, the plaintiff may attempt to establish that he was the victim of intentional discrimination “by showing that the employer’s proffered explanation is- unworthy of credence.” Burdine, supra, at 256. Moreover, although the presumption of discrimination “drops out of the picture” once the defendant meets its burden of production, St. Mary’s Honor Center, supra, at 511, the trier of fact may still consider the evidence establishing the plaintiff’s prima facie case “and inferences properly drawn therefrom ... on the issue of whether the defendant’s explanation is pretextual,” Burdine, supra, at 255, n. 10.

In this case, the evidence supporting respondent’s explanation for petitioner’s discharge consisted primarily of testimony by Chesnut and Sanderson and documentation of petitioner’s alleged “shoddy record keeping.” 197 F. 3d, at 692. Chesnut testified that a 1993 audit of Hinge Room operations revealed “a very lax assembly line” where employees were not adhering to general work rules. 4 Record 197-199. As a result of that audit, petitioner was placed on 90 days’ probation for unsatisfactory performance. 197 F. 3d, at 690. In 1995, Chesnut ordered another investí-gation of the Hinge Room, which, according to his testimony, revealed that petitioner was not correctly recording the absences and hours of employees. 4 Record 204-205. Respondent introduced summaries of that investigation documenting several attendance violations by 12 employees under petitioner’s supervision, and noting that each should have been disciplined in some manner. See App. 21-24, 30-37; 4 Record 206-208. Chesnut testified that this failure to discipline absent and late employees is “extremely important when you are dealing with a union” because uneven enforcement across departments would keep the company “in grievance and arbitration cases, which are costly, all the time.” 4 id., at 206. He and Sanderson also stated that petitioner’s errors, by failing to adjust for hours not worked, cost the company overpaid wages. 3 id., at 100, 142,154; 4 id., at 191-192,213. Sanderson testified that she accepted the recommendation to discharge petitioner because he had “intentionally falsif[ied] company pay records.” 3 id., at 100.

Petitioner, however, made a substantial showing that respondent’s explanation was false. First, petitioner offered evidence that he had properly maintained the attendance records. Most of the timekeeping errors cited by respondent involved employees who were not marked late but who were recorded as having arrived at the plant at 7 a.m. for the 7 a.m. shift. 3 id., at 118-123; 4 id., at 240-247,283-285, 291, 293-294. Respondent contended that employees arriving at 7 a.m. could not have been at their workstations by 7 a.m., and therefore must have been'late. 3 id., at 119-120; 4 id., at 241, 245. But both petitioner and Oswalt testified that the company's automated timeeloek often failed to scan employees’ timecards, so that the timesheets would not record any time of arrival. 3 id., at 6, 85; 4 id., at 334-335. On these occasions, petitioner and Oswalt would visually cheek the workstations and record whether the employees were present at the start of the shift. 3 id., at 6, 85-87; 4 id., at 335. They stated that if an employee arrived promptly but the timesheet contained no time of arrival, they would reconcile the two by marking “7 a.m.” as the employee’s arrival time, even if the employee actually arrived at the plant earlier. Ibid. On cross-examination, Chesnut acknowledged that the timecloek sometimes malfunctioned, and that if “people were there at their work station[s]” at the start of the shift, the supervisor “would write in seven o’clock.” 4 id., at 244. Petitioner also testified that when employees arrived before or stayed after their shifts, he would assign them additional work so they would not be overpaid. See 197 F. 3d, at 693.

Petitioner similarly cast doubt on whether he was responsible for any failure to discipline late and absent employees. Petitioner testified that his job only included reviewing the daily and weekly attendance reports, and that disciplinary writeups were based on the monthly reports, which were reviewed by Caldwell. 3 Record 20-22; 4 id., at 335. Sand-erson admitted that Caldwell, and not petitioner, was responsible for citing employees for violations of the company’s attendance policy. 3 id., at 20-21,137-138. Further, Chesnut conceded that there had never been a union grievance or employee complaint arising from petitioner’s recordkeeping, and that the company had never calculated the amount of overpayments allegedly attributable to petitioner’s errors. 4 id., at 267, 301. Petitioner also testified that, on the day he was fired, Chesnut said that his discharge was due to his failure to report as absent one employee, Gina Mae Coley, on two days in September 1995. 3 id., at 23, 70; 4 id., at 335-336. But petitioner explained that he had spent those days in the hospital, and that Caldwell was therefore responsible for any overpayment of Coley. 3 id., at 17, 22. Finally, petitioner stated that on previous occasions that employees were paid for hours they had not worked, the company had simply adjusted those employees’ next paychecks to correct the errors. 3 id., at 72-73.

Based on this evidence, the Court of Appeals concluded that petitioner “very well may be correct” that “a reasonable jury could have found that [respondent’s] explanation for its employment decision was pretextual.” 197 F. 3d, at 693. Nonetheless, the court held that this showing, standing alone, was insufficient to sustain the jury’s finding of liability: “We must; as an essential final step, determine whether Beeves presented sufficient evidence that his age motivated [respondent’s] employment decision.” Ibid. And in making this determination, the Court of Appeals ignored the evidence supporting petitioner’s prima facie case and challenging respondent’s explanation for its decision. See id., at 693-694. The court confined its review of evidence favoring petitioner to that evidence showing that Chesnut had directed derogatory, age-based comments at petitioner, and that Chesnut had singled out petitioner for harsher treatment than younger employees. See ibid. It is therefore apparent that the court believed that only this additional evidence of discrimination was relevant to whether the jury’s verdict should stand. That is, the Court of Appeals proceeded from the assumption that a prima facie case of discrimination, combined with sufficient evidence for the trier of fact to disbelieve the defendant’s legitimate, nondiserimi-natory reason for its decision, is insufficient as a matter of law to sustain a jury’s finding of intentional discrimination.

In so reasoning, the Court of Appeals misconceived the evidentiary burden borne by plaintiffs who attempt to prove intentional discrimination through indirect evidence. This much is evident from our decision in St. Mary’s Honor Center. There we held that the factfinder’s rejection of the employer’s legitimate, nondiseriminatory reason for its action does not compel judgment for the plaintiff. 509 U. S., at 511. The ultimate question is whether the employer intentionally discriminated, arid proof that “the employer’s proffered reason is unpersuasive, or even obviously contrived, does not necessarily establish that the plaintiff’s proffered reason ... is correct.” Id., at 524. In other words, “[i]t is not enough ... to disbelieve the employer; the fact-finder must believe the plaintiff’s explanation of intentional discrimination.” Id., at 519.

In reaching this conclusion, however, we reasoned that it is permissible for the trier of fact to infer the ultimate fact of discrimination from the falsity of the employer’s explanation. Specifically, we stated:

“The factfinder’s disbelief of the reasons put forward by the defendant (particularly if disbelief is accompanied by a suspicion of mendacity) may, together with the elements of the prima facie case, suffice to show intentional discrimination. Thus, rejection of the defendant’s proffered reasons will permit the trier of fact to infer the ultimate fact of intentional discrimination.” Id., at 511.

Proof that the defendant’s explanation is unworthy of credence is simply one form of circumstantial evidence that is probative of intentional discrimination, and it may be quite persuasive. See id., at 517 (“[P]roving the employer’s reason false becomes part of (and often considerably assists) the greater enterprise of proving that the real reason was intentional discrimination”). In appropriate circumstances, the trier of fact can reasonably infer from the falsity of the explanation that the employer is dissembling to cover up a discriminatory purpose. Such an inference is consistent with the general principle of evidence law that the factfinder is entitled to consider a party’s dishonesty about a material fact as “affirmative evidence of guilt.” Wright v. West, 505 U. S. 277, 296 (1992); see also Wilson v. United States, 162 U.S. 613, 620-621 (1896); 2 J. Wigmore, Evidence §278(2), p. 133 (J. Chadbourn rev. 1979). Moreover, once the employer’s justification has been eliminated, discrimination may well be the most likely alternative explanation, especially since the employer is in the best position to put forth the actual reason for its decision. Cf. Furnco Constr. Corp. v. Waters, 438 U. S. 567, 577 (1978) (“[W]hen all legitimate reasons for rejecting an applicant have been eliminated as possible reasons for the employer’s actions, it is more likely than not the employer, who we generally assume acts with some reason, based his decision on an impermissible consideration”). Thus, a plaintiff’s prima facie case, combined with sufficient evidence to find that the employer’s asserted justification is false, may permit the trier of fact to conclude that the employer unlawfully discriminated.

This is not to say that such a showing by the plaintiff will always be adequate to sustain a jury’s finding of liability. Certainly there will be instances where, although the plaintiff has established a prima facie case and set forth sufficient evidence to reject the defendant’s explanation, no rational factfinder could conclude that the action was discriminatory. For instance, an employer would be entitled to judgment as a matter of law if the record conclusively revealed some other, nondiscriminatory reason for the employer’s decision, or if the plaintiff created only a weak issue of fact as to whether the employer’s reason was untrue and there was abundant and uncontroverted independent evidence that no discrimination had occurred. See Aka v. Washington Hospital Center, 156 F. 3d, at 1291-1292; see also Fisher v. Vassar College, 114 F. 3d, at 1338 (“[I]f the circumstances show that the defendant gave the false explanation to conceal something other than discrimination, the inference of discrimination will be weak or nonexistent”). To hold otherwise would be effectively to insulate an entire category of employment discrimination cases from review under Rule 50, and we have reiterated that trial courts should not “‘treat discrimination differently from other ultimate questions of fact.’” St. Mary’s Honor Center, supra, at 524 (quoting Aikens, 460 U. S., at 716).

Whether judgment as a matter of law is appropriate in any particular case will depend on a number of factors. Those include the strength of the plaintiff’s prima facie case, the probative value of the proof that the employer’s explanation is false, and any other evidence that supports the employer’s ease and that properly may be considered on a motion for judgment as a matter of law. See infra, at 151-152. For purposes of this ease, we need not — and could not — resolve all of the circumstances in which such factors would entitle an employer to judgment as a matter of law. It suffices to say that, because a prima facie case and sufficient evidence to reject the employer’s explanation may permit a finding of liability, the Court of Appeals erred in proceeding from the premise that a plaintiff must always introduce additional, independent evidence of discrimination.

hH hH h-1

A

The remaining question is whether, despite the Court of Appeals’ misconception of petitioner’s evidentiary burden, respondent was nonetheless entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Under Rule 50, a court should render judgment as a matter of law when “a party has been fully heard on an issue and there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for that party on that issue.” Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 50(a); see also Weisgram v. Marley Co., 528 U. S. 440, 447-448 (2000). The Courts of Appeals have articulated differing formulations as to what evidence a court is to consider in ruling on a Rule 50 motion. See Venture Technology, Inc. v. National Fuel Gas Distribution Corp., decided with Schwimmer v. Sony Corp. of America, 459 U. S. 1007, 1009 (1982) (White, J., dissenting from denial of certio-rari). Some decisions have stated that review is limited to that evidence favorable to the nonmoving party, see, e. g., Aparicio v. Norfolk & Western R. Co., 84 F. 3d 803, 807 (CA6 1996); Simpson v. Skelly Oil Co., 371 F. 2d 563, 566 (CA8 1967), while most have held that review extends to the entire record, drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-movant, see, e. g., Tate v. Government Employees Ins. Co., 997 F. 2d 1438, 1436 (CA111993); Boeing Co. v. Shipman, 411 F. 2d 365, 374 (CA5 1969) (en bane).

On closer examination, this conflict seems more semantic than real. Those decisions holding that review under Rule 50 should be limited to evidence favorable to the nonmovant appear to have their genesis in Wilkerson v. McCarthy, 336 U. S. 53 (1949). See 9A C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure §2529, pp. 297-301 (2d ed. 1995) (hereinafter Wright & Miller). In Wilkerson, we stated that “in passing upon whether there is sufficient evidence to submit an issue to the jury we need look only to the evidence and reasonable inferences which tend to support the case of” the nonmoving party. 336 U. S., at 57. But subsequent decisions have clarified that this passage was referring to the evidence to which the trial court should give credence, not the evidence that the court should review. In the analogous context of summary judgment under Rule 56, we have stated that the court must review the record “taken as a whole.” Matsushita Elec. Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U. S. 574, 587 (1986). And the standard for granting summary judgment “mirrors” the standard for judgment as a matter of law, such that “the inquiry under each is the same.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U. S. 242, 250-251 (1986); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U. S. 317, 323 (1986). It therefore follows that, in entertaining a motion for judgment as a matter of law, the court should review all of the evidence in the record.

In doing so, however, the court must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, and it may not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence. Lytle v. Household Mfg., Inc., 494 U. S. 545, 554-555 (1990); Liberty Lobby, Inc., supra, at 254; Continental Ore Co. v. Union Carbide & Carbon Corp., 370 U. S. 690, 696, n. 6 (1962). “Credibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge.” Liberty Lobby, supra, at 255. Thus, although the court should review the record as a whole, it must disregard all evidence favorable to the moving party that the jury is not required to believe. See Wright & Miller 299. That is, the court should give credence to the evidence favoring the nonmovant as well as that “evidence supporting the moving party that is uncontradicted and unimpeaehed, at least to the extent that that evidence comes from disinterested witnesses.” Id., at 300.

B

Applying this standard here, it is apparent that respondent was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In this case, in addition to establishing a prima facie case of discrimination and creating a jury issue as to the falsity of the employer’s explanation, petitioner introduced additional evidence that Chesnut was motivated by age-based animus and was principally responsible for petitioner’s firing. Petitioner testified that Chesnut had told him that he “was so old [he] must have come over on the Mayflower” and, on one occasion when petitioner was having difficulty starting a machine, that he “was too damn old to do [his] job.” 3 Record 26. According to petitioner, Chesnut would regularly “cuss at me and shake his finger in my face.” 3 id., at 26-27. Oswalt, roughly 24 years younger than petitioner, corroborated that there was an “obvious difference” in how Chesnut treated them. 3 id., at 82. He stated that, although he and Chesnut “had [their] differences,” “it was nothing compared to the way [Chesnut] treated Roger.” Ibid. Oswalt explained that Chesnut “tolerated quite a bit” from him even though he “defied” Chesnut “quite often,” but that Chesnut treated petitioner “[i]n a manner, as you would... treat... a child when... you’re angry with [him].” 3 id., at 82-83. Petitioner also demonstrated that, according to company records, he and Oswalt had nearly identical rates of productivity in 1993. 3 id., at 163-167; 4 id., at 225-226. Yet respondent conducted an efficiency study of only the regular line, supervised by petitioner, and placed only petitioner on probation. 3 id., at 166-167; 4 id., at 229. Ches-nut conducted that efficiency study and, after having testified to the contrary on direct examination, acknowledged on cross-examination that he had recommended that petitioner be placed on probation following the study. 4 id., at 197-199, 237.

Further, petitioner introduced evidence that Chesnut was the actual decisionmaker behind his firing. Chesnut was married to Sanderson, who made the formal decision to discharge petitioner. 3 id., at 90, 152. Although Sand-erson testified that she fired petitioner because he had “intentionally falsified] company pay records,” 3 id., at 100, respondent only introduced evidence concerning the inaccuracy of the records, not their falsification. A1994 letter authored by Chesnut indicated that he berated other company directors, who were supposedly his coequals, about how to do their jobs. PI. Exh. 7, 3 Record 108-112. Moreover, Oswalt testified that all of respondent’s employees feared Chesnut, and that Chesnut had exercised “absolute power” within the company for “[a]s long as [he] can remember.” 3 id., at 80.

In holding that the record contained insufficient evidence to sustain the jury’s verdict, the Court of Appeals misapplied the standard of review dictated by Rule 50. Again, the court disregarded critical evidence favorable to petitioner — - namely, the evidence supporting petitioner’s prima facie case and undermining respondent’s nondiscriminatory explanation. See 197 F. 3d, at 693-694. The court also failed to draw all reasonable inferences in favor of petitioner. For instance, while acknowledging “the potentially damning nature” of Chesnut’s age-related comments, the court discounted them on the ground that they “were not made in the direct context of Reeves’s termination.” Id., at 693. And the court discredited petitioner’s evidence that Chesnut was the actual decisionmaker by giving weight to the fact that there was "no evidence to suggest that any of the other decision makers were motivated by age.” Id., at 694. Moreover, the other evidence on which the court relied — that Caldwell and Oswalt were also cited for poor recordkeeping, and that respondent employed many managers over age 50— although relevant, is certainly not dispositive. See Furnco, 438 U. S., at 580 (evidence that employer’s work force was racially balanced, while “not wholly irrelevant,” was not “sufficient to conclusively demonstrate that [the employer’s] actions were not discriminatorily motivated”). In concluding that these circumstances so overwhelmed the evidence favoring petitioner that no rational trier of fact could have found that petitioner was fired because of his age, the Court of Appeals impermissibly substituted its judgment concerning the weight of the evidence for the jury’s.

The ultimate question in every employment discrimination ease involving a claim of disparate treatment is whether the plaintiff was the victim of intentional discrimination. Given the evidence in the record supporting petitioner, we see no reason to subject the parties to an additional round of litigation before the Court of Appeals rather than to resolve the matter here. The District Court plainly informed the jury that petitioner was required to show “by a preponderance of the evidence that his age was a determining and motivating factor in the decision of [respondent] to terminate him.” Tr. 7 (Jury Charge) (Sept. 12, 1997). The court instructed the jury that, to show that respondent’s explanation was a pretext for discrimination, petitioner had to demonstrate “1, that the stated reasons were not the real reasons for [petitioner’s] discharge; and 2, that age discrimination was the real reason for [petitioner’s] discharge.” Ibid, (emphasis added). Given that petitioner established a prima facie ease of discrimination, introduced enough evidence for the jury to reject respondent’s explanation, and produced additional evidence of age-based animus, there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that respondent had intentionally discriminated. The District Court was therefore correct to submit the case to the jury, and the Court of Appeals erred in overturning its verdict.

For these reasons, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.

It is so ordered.

Justice Ginsburg,

concurring.

The Court today holds that an employment discrimination plaintiff may survive judgment as a matter of law by submitting two categories of evidence: first, evidence establishing a “prima facie case,” as that term is used in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U. S. 792, 802 (1973); and second, evidence from which a rational factfinder could conclude that the employer’s proffered explanation for its actions was false. Because the Court of Appeals in this case plainly, and erroneously, required the plaintiff to offer some evidence beyond those two categories, no broader holding is necessary to support reversal.

I write separately to note that it may be incumbent on the Court, in an appropriate case, to define more precisely the circumstances in which plaintiffs will be required to submit evidence beyond these two categories in order to survive a motion for judgment as a matter of law. I anticipate that such circumstances will be uncommon. As the Court notes, it is a principle of evidence law that the jury is entitled to treat a party’s dishonesty about a material fact as evidence of culpability. Ante, at 147. Under this eommonsense principle, evidence suggesting that a defendant accused of illegal discrimination has chosen to give a false explanation for its actions gives rise to a rational inference that the defendant could be masking its actual, illegal motivation. Ibid. Whether the defendant was in fact motivated by discrimination is of course for the finder of fact to decide; that is the lesson of St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U. S. 502 (1993). But the inference remains — unless it is conclusively demonstrated, by evidence the district court is required to credit on a motion for judgment as a matter of law, see ante, at 151, that discrimination could not have been the defendant’s true motivation. If such conclusive demonstrations are (as I suspect) atypical, it follows that the ultimate question of liability ordinarily should not be taken from the jury once the plaintiff has introduced the two categories of evidence described above. Because the Court’s opinion leaves room for sueh further elaboration in an appropriate case, I join it in full.