Source: cases/29usc623/f-supp-3d-361-616-rogers-v-medline-indus.case
Case source: https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/f-supp-3d/volume_361/0616_01/index.html
The Court finds that Rogers has abandoned his claim of disparate impact.
Rogers has not identified or isolated any neutral employment policy to form the basis of such a claim.
Because Rogers has called into question the truth of Medline's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for his termination, he has done enough to withstand Medline's Motion [55] for Summary Judgment.
casedsl 1.2 # author: Flash2 (gemini-3.8-flash-high) # triaged-by: Fable (2026-11-10) case /f-supp-3d/361/0616-01 name Rogers v. Medline Indus., Inc. cite 361 F. Supp. 3d 616 (2019) court United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi date 2019-01-18 url catalog/cases/f-supp-3d/volume_361/0616_01/index.html source ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_361.jsonl sha1=1eed51b2188e8bbf993afefcef966679e8bac3fc chars=47243 opinion order : order by Ozerden @0..47243 controlling law 29usc623 role applied posture civil; ADEA disparate treatment and disparate impact; employer motion for summary judgment granted in part and denied in part by SD Miss result mixed element employment-action : satisfied [conceded] route discharge pattern specialty salesperson terminated for substandard performance after a corrective action plan; prima facie case conceded for the motion fact @10759..10821 [supports] | Medline terminated Rogers' employment effective July 31, 2016. fact @26285..26439 [supports] | For purposes of this Motion [55], Medline has conceded that Rogers has met his prima facie burden to show a claim based on intentional age discrimination. element neutral-practice : not-satisfied [waived] route _whole pattern disparate-impact theory pleaded but expressly disclaimed in the summary-judgment response fact @18544..18671 [cuts-against] | In fact, Rogers states in the final footnote of his Response [70] that "[he] is not traveling under a disparate impact theory." held @18817..18889 | The Court finds that Rogers has abandoned his claim of disparate impact. gloss The abandonment disposes of the whole disparate-impact claim; it is recorded on neutral-practice because that is the element the court's alternative ruling addresses. element neutral-practice : not-satisfied [no-evidence] scope alternative route specific-practice-identification pattern no employment policy identified at all; only a list of terminated older salespersons rule @17606..17781 [quoted] | Instead, the employee is "responsible for isolating and identifying the specific employment practices that are allegedly responsible for any observed statistical disparities." held @19057..19159 | Rogers has not identified or isolated any neutral employment policy to form the basis of such a claim. element age-causation : satisfied [triable] route pretext-inference pattern corrective action plan planned before any documented customer complaint, non-mandatory incentive quota, earlier lower quota results tolerated; one remote age remark held not probative fact @37189..37344 [supports] | Prior to the implementation of the corrective action plan generally noting some complaints, the record is in fact barren of documented customer complaints. fact @39163..39363 [supports] | Gallarelli wrote: "[Briggs] was wanting to wait until 2015 numbers come out (STAR/Quota) so we can properly draft a [corrective action plan.] ... We have three months minimum so no harm at this time." fact @41032..41343 [supports] | Rogers has presented evidence that STAR quota is not mandatory, that Gallarelli and Briggs planned his corrective action plan prior to documenting any customer complaints, and that Medline did not fire him or place him on any form of corrective action for quota numbers significantly lower than his 2015 finish. fact @3762..3888 [cuts-against] | It is undisputed that Rogers never met Medline's established sales quotas from 2012 until the date of his termination in 2016. fact @23487..23673 [cuts-against] | Although the comment was made by Gallarelli, an individual with authority over Rogers, and was related to Rogers' age, it was made more than three years before Medline terminated Rogers. rule @40213..40429 [quoted] | "Thus, the plaintiff can survive summary judgment by producing evidence that creates a jury issue as to the employer's discriminatory animus or the falsity of the employer's legitimate nondiscriminatory explanation." held @41344..41541 | Because Rogers has called into question the truth of Medline's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for his termination, he has done enough to withstand Medline's Motion [55] for Summary Judgment. gloss The court rejects the 2013 remark as direct evidence and as circumstantial evidence of animus, and rejects the list of terminated older salespersons; the triable issue rests on falsity of the stated reasons alone (Reeves).