United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas · 2018-10-16
29usc623: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)
Case and law context
Role: applied; posture: civil; ADEA age discrimination; magistrate judge recommends granting employer's motion for summary judgment (ADA, ADEA, § 1981) and denying plaintiff's cross-motion; result: claimant-lost; claim:
Uncertainty
opinion: the IR text is only the magistrate judge's Memorandum and Recommendation (28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)); the district judge's order adopting it is not in the record text, so the recommendation is recorded as the controlling ruling
Misfit
None recorded
B · Case × element grid
Top-level elements follow claim order in panels of up to six elements. Case rows repeat across panels. Every recorded block retains its holding and basis; multiple blocks are not merged into a case-level verdict. ✓ satisfied · ✗ not satisfied · ○ not reached · · not addressed. Muted blocks are not counted. Sub-element evidence remains on case and element pages.
Elements 1–6 of 31
| Case | Employer coverage and exclusions | Age forty or older | Hiring discharge or employment terms | Judicial but-for standard for age-based treatment | Route-conditioned statutory f(1) and f(2) alternatives | Conditional state firefighter and law-enforcement hiring or retirement |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kitchen v. BASF — 343 F. Supp. 3d 681 (2018) · United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas · 2018 (29usc623: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 7–12 of 31
| Case | Age sixty-five executive or high-policymaker compulsory retirement | Judicial impact requirement to identify a particular practice | Judicial impact requirement of significant causal disparity | Covered employment agency | Covered labor organization | Opposition or participation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kitchen v. BASF — 343 F. Supp. 3d 681 (2018) · United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas · 2018 (29usc623: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 13–18 of 31
| Case | Judicial material-adversity standard for retaliation | Retaliatory causal connection | Agency referral discrimination | Membership classification referral or causing discrimination | Employer agency or union advertiser | Age-based notice or advertisement |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kitchen v. BASF — 343 F. Supp. 3d 681 (2018) · United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas · 2018 (29usc623: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 19–24 of 31
| Case | Wage reduction to comply | Employer agency union or combination maintaining a pension plan | Establish or maintain an employee pension benefit plan | Age-based accrual or allocation cessation or reduction | Subsection i pension qualifications and compliance | Conditional bona fide seniority system or benefit plan |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kitchen v. BASF — 343 F. Supp. 3d 681 (2018) · United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas · 2018 (29usc623: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 25–30 of 31
| Case | Narrow bona fide occupational qualification | Displayed scope and specialized exclusions | Charge filing waiver and remedies | Foreign workplace conflict with local law | Good cause for employer discharge or discipline | Judicial outside-applicant coverage limit where circuit precedent controls |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kitchen v. BASF — 343 F. Supp. 3d 681 (2018) · United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas · 2018 (29usc623: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 31–31 of 31
| Case | Reasonable factors other than age |
|---|---|
| Kitchen v. BASF — 343 F. Supp. 3d 681 (2018) · United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas · 2018 (29usc623: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed |
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kitchen v. BASF — 343 F. Supp. 3d 681 (2018) · United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas · 2018 — not · no-evidence (29usc623: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Judicial but-for standard for age-based treatment | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: no-evidence The court adds an alternative ground in one sentence: even assuming a prima facie case, no showing that the alcohol-test reason was a pretext for age discrimination. | no evidence of replacement or of differently treated comparators, only the plaintiff's subjective belief; decisionmaker himself in his 50s | Kitchen's ADEA claim is based entirely on his subjective belief that he was terminated, in part, because of his age.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_343.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/343/0681-01; Unicode character offsets [29202:29318] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7cc7b8c9b26cb0ba8ad72244bfe2e18a14f2eccb20f1570fdeb46e90c7c3e404.Kitchen provides zero evidence that he was treated differently than any other BASF employees under similar circumstances.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_343.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/343/0681-01; Unicode character offsets [29708:29829] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7cc7b8c9b26cb0ba8ad72244bfe2e18a14f2eccb20f1570fdeb46e90c7c3e404.Although Kitchen dismisses the fact that Damron, the individual who fired him, is also in his 50s and thus a member of the same protected class as Kitchen, the law is clear:Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_343.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/343/0681-01; Unicode character offsets [29830:30003] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7cc7b8c9b26cb0ba8ad72244bfe2e18a14f2eccb20f1570fdeb46e90c7c3e404.As a legal matter, Kitchen's subjective belief that age played a role in his termination is insufficient to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADEA.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_343.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/343/0681-01; Unicode character offsets [29319:29489] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7cc7b8c9b26cb0ba8ad72244bfe2e18a14f2eccb20f1570fdeb46e90c7c3e404.Kitchen presents absolutely no evidence whatsoever to establish a prima facie case under the ADEA that "he was either i) replaced by someone outside the protected class, ii) replaced by someone younger, or iii) otherwise discharged because of his age."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_343.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/343/0681-01; Unicode character offsets [28641:28893] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7cc7b8c9b26cb0ba8ad72244bfe2e18a14f2eccb20f1570fdeb46e90c7c3e404.In short, Kitchen's ADEA claim falls flat. Summary judgment is appropriate in favor of BASF on the ADEA cause of action.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_343.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/343/0681-01; Unicode character offsets [30507:30627] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7cc7b8c9b26cb0ba8ad72244bfe2e18a14f2eccb20f1570fdeb46e90c7c3e404. |
| Kitchen v. BASF — 343 F. Supp. 3d 681 (2018) · United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas · 2018 — satisfied · conceded (29usc623: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Hiring discharge or employment terms | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: conceded | termination after a positive alcohol test under a final warning and return-to-work agreement | Because Damron believed Kitchen had turned up at work under the influence of alcohol in violation of company policy and his Return to Work Agreement and Final Warning, Kitchen's employment was terminated effective October 2, 2015.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_343.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/343/0681-01; Unicode character offsets [4621:4851] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7cc7b8c9b26cb0ba8ad72244bfe2e18a14f2eccb20f1570fdeb46e90c7c3e404. |
| Kitchen v. BASF — 343 F. Supp. 3d 681 (2018) · United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas · 2018 — satisfied · conceded (29usc623: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Age forty or older | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: conceded | employee over 55 at discharge; age not disputed | At the time of his termination, Kitchen was over the age of 55.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_343.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/343/0681-01; Unicode character offsets [4852:4915] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7cc7b8c9b26cb0ba8ad72244bfe2e18a14f2eccb20f1570fdeb46e90c7c3e404. |