Rogers v. Medline Indus., Inc.

Facts

1. 3 Hiring discharge or employment terms satisfied conceded

   Medline terminated Rogers' employment effective July 31, 2016.

2. 3 Hiring discharge or employment terms satisfied conceded

   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.

3. 4 Judicial but-for standard for age-based treatment satisfied triable

   It is undisputed that Rogers never met Medline's established sales quotas from 2012 until the date of his termination in 2016.

4. 4 Judicial but-for standard for age-based treatment satisfied triable

   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.

5. 4 Judicial but-for standard for age-based treatment satisfied triable

   Prior to the implementation of the corrective action plan generally noting some complaints, the record is in fact barren of documented customer complaints.

6. 4 Judicial but-for standard for age-based treatment satisfied triable

   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."

7. 4 Judicial but-for standard for age-based treatment satisfied triable

   "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."

8. 4 Judicial but-for standard for age-based treatment satisfied triable

   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.

9. 4 Judicial but-for standard for age-based treatment satisfied triable

   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.

10. 5 Judicial impact requirement to identify a particular practice not waived

    In fact, Rogers states in the final footnote of his Response [70] that "[he] is not traveling under a disparate impact theory."

11. 5 Judicial impact requirement to identify a particular practice not waived

    The Court finds that Rogers has abandoned his claim of disparate impact.