Source: cases/29usc623/f-supp-3d-366-983-richardson-v-astec.case
Case source: https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/f-supp-3d/volume_366/0983_01/index.html
The parties do not dispute that Richardson is a member of a protected class, that she suffered an adverse employment action, or that she was qualified for the position she held.
The parties do not dispute that Richardson is a member of a protected class, that she suffered an adverse employment action, or that she was qualified for the position she held.
An employee can demonstrate pretext by providing evidence that the employer's reason for terminating her: (1) had no basis in fact; (2) did not actually motivate the discharge; or (3) was insufficient to motivate the discharge.
Accordingly, Richardson has provided sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that Astec's stated reason for firing Richardson was actually pretext for age discrimination.
casedsl 1.2 # author: Flash2 (gemini-3.8-flash-high) # triaged-by: Fable (2026-11-10) case /f-supp-3d/366/0983-01 name Richardson v. Astec, Inc. cite 366 F. Supp. 3d 983 (2019) court United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee date 2019-03-18 url catalog/cases/f-supp-3d/volume_366/0983_01/index.html source ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_366.jsonl sha1=b3c424f8d90a4769d51ea36832ed2007136c1507 chars=45332 opinion order : order by McDonough @0..45332 controlling law 29usc623 role applied posture civil; ADEA age discrimination; employer motion for summary judgment denied by ED Tenn result claimant-won element protected-age : satisfied [conceded] route _whole pattern worker-over-forty fact @12642..12701 [supports] | Richardson was seventy years old when Astec terminated her. held @33413..33590 | The parties do not dispute that Richardson is a member of a protected class, that she suffered an adverse employment action, or that she was qualified for the position she held. element employment-action : satisfied [conceded] route discharge pattern employer-terminated-worker fact @12438..12618 [supports] | On January 16, 2017, after Oswald submitted his complaint, McMahan and Oswald met with Locklear and, at the conclusion of the meeting, decided to terminate Richardson's employment. held @33413..33590 | The parties do not dispute that Richardson is a member of a protected class, that she suffered an adverse employment action, or that she was qualified for the position she held. element age-causation : satisfied [triable] route pretext-inference pattern disputed-misconduct-complaint-plus-retirement-inquiries-and-undisciplined-younger-comparator fact @14003..14170 [supports] | Richardson also testified that two or three days before her termination, McMahan asked when she was going to retire, noting that she was about to be seventy years old. fact @35150..35331 [supports] | Astec does not point to any evidence suggesting that Oswald was not expected to comply with Astec's core values or that McMahan subsequently disciplined him for his alleged conduct. fact @37722..37936 [supports] | Additionally, Richardson has submitted a declaration from Debbie Daugherty in which she avers that Richardson never made her cry and that she refused to report Richardson to human resources despite Oswald's urging. fact @14294..14584 [cuts-against] | McMahan maintains any questions about Richardson's retirement plans were solely for purposes of succession planning, citing the need to ensure that certain responsibilities were covered in the event an employee resigned, retired, or otherwise ended their employment relationship with Astec. rule @36302..36529 | An employee can demonstrate pretext by providing evidence that the employer's reason for terminating her: (1) had no basis in fact; (2) did not actually motivate the discharge; or (3) was insufficient to motivate the discharge. held @38667..38861 | Accordingly, Richardson has provided sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that Astec's stated reason for firing Richardson was actually pretext for age discrimination.