Some ADEA Cases
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc.,
120 S.Ct. 2097 (2000). In this ADEA wrongful termination action, the Supreme Court holds
that a prima facie case plus evidence of pretext will be sufficient to create a
jury question in most cases.
In
Cruz-Ramos v. Puerto Rico Sun Oil Co., 202 F.3d 381
(1st Cir. 2000), the court held that a lay off decision
based on fact employee is eligible for early retirement
does not make out case of age discrimination.
In Woodman v.
WWOR-TV, Inc., 411 F.3d 69 (2d Cir. 2005), the court
explained that the plaintiff
cannot make out prima facie case of age discrimination
if the employer does not know that the plaintiff was
significantly older than the person who was treated more
favorably.
In
Kautz
v. Met-Pro Corp., 412 F.3d 463 (3d Cir. 2005), the
court held that a plaintiff must demonstrate that each
of the employer's proffered nondiscriminatory reasons
are pretextual, but one way this can be done is to show
that enough of the employer's proffered reasons are
pretextual so as to seriously undermine the employer's
credibility and thereby throw all proffered reasons into
doubt.
In Mereish v.
Walker, 359
F.3d 330 (4th Cir. 2004), the court explained that
general remarks referring to the process of generational
change create no triable issue of age discrimination.
In
Machinchick v. PB Power, Inc., 398 F.3d 345 (5th
Cir. 2005), the court held that part of the age
discrimination evidence consisted of the supervisor's
use of "age stereotyping remarks" and the fact that in
their first meeting, the supervisor asked Machinchick
when he planned to retire.
In Bender v.
Hecht's Dept. Stores, 455 F.3d 612 (6th Cir. 2006),
the Sixth Circuit addressed the group to which the
plaintiffs should be compared when the employer engages
in a company-wide RIF. The court also addresses the
standard to be applied when a plaintiff is attempting to
establish pretext on the basis that the plaintiff is
better qualified than the person selected.
In Cerutti v.
BASF Corp., 349 F.3d 1055 (7th Cir. 2003), the court
held that the plaintiffs failed to show that they
satisfied the "qualified for position" prong of the
prima facie case. The fact that they had good
evaluations in the past is not sufficient because BASF
was changing the positions and looking for who could "do
more with less."
In Haas v.
Kelly Services, Inc., 409 F.3d 1030 (8th Cir. 2005),
the court held that the fact that the employer did not
follow its own personnel policies does not create an
inference of age discrimination.
In Coleman
v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271 (9th Cir. 2000),
three employees sued Quaker Oats for age discrimination
after losing their jobs during reductions in force
during 1994 and 1995. A legitimate reason for not
selecting the older (and higher ranking) employee for an
available position is that the position would be a
demotion for the older employee which might result in a
morale problem.
In Bryant v.
Farmers Ins. Exchange, 432 F.3d 1114 (10th Cir.
2005), the court held that if
the employer gives
multiple reasons for the employee's termination, but one
of those reasons predominates over the others, then
establishing pretext as to this dominant reason, alone,
is sufficient to survive summary judgment.
In Morris v.
Emory Clinic, Inc., 402 F.3d 1076 (11th Cir. 2005),
an ADEA wrongful termination case, the court held that
where plaintiff wishes to show that persons not in his
protected class were treated more favorably for similar
misconduct, the misconduct must be "nearly identical."
In
Professional Pilots Federation v. F.A.A., 118 F.3d
758 (D.C. Cir. 1997), the court held that the ADEA does
not prohibit the FAA from making age an employment
criterion for airline pilots.