Westmoreland v. TWC Administration, LLC — 924 F.3d 718 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2019

Role: applied; posture: appellate review after jury trial; result: claimant-won; claim:

Uncertainty

None recorded

Misfit

The same facts support a jury inference of but-for causation; the remark is not a standalone element or a per-se rule. The appellate court affirms a verdict after reviewing evidence as a whole.

interpretation

An employee who alleges that her employer violated this prohibition "must prove by a preponderance of the evidence (which may be direct or circumstantial), that age was the 'but-for' cause of the challenged employer decision." Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc. , 557 U.S. 167, 177-78, 129 S.Ct. 2343, 174 L.Ed.2d 119 (2009). In other words, an employee cannot prevail on an age discrimination claim by showing that age was one of multiple motives for an employer's decision; the employee must prove that the employer would not have fired her in the absence of age discrimination. Id. at 177, 129 S.Ct. 2343.

Westmoreland v. TWC Administration, LLC — 924 F.3d 718 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2019 (29usc623: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed)

An employee who alleges that her employer violated this prohibition "must prove by a preponderance of the evidence (which may be direct or circumstantial), that age was the 'but-for' cause of the challenged employer decision." Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc. , 557 U.S. 167, 177-78, 129 S.Ct. 2343, 174 L.Ed.2d 119 (2009). In other words, an employee cannot prevail on an age discrimination claim by showing that age was one of multiple motives for an employer's decision; the employee must prove that the employer would not have fired her in the absence of age discrimination. Id. at 177, 129 S.Ct. 2343.

Gross, 557 U.S. 167 (2009), governs §623(a)(1). A motivating-factor showing alone does not shift persuasion to the employer. Direct and circumstantial proof are available; McDonnell Douglas is a proof framework, not the statute or an inflexible universal pleading checklist.

interpretation

When an employee has established a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the employer to "rebut th[is] presumption of discrimination." Id. at 254, 101 S.Ct. 1089. To do so, the employer must "produc[e] evidence that" it acted "for a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason." Id. "This burden is one of production, not persuasion; it can involve no credibility assessment." Reeves , 530 U.S. at 142, 120 S.Ct. 2097 (internal quotation marks omitted).

Westmoreland v. TWC Administration, LLC — 924 F.3d 718 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2019 (29usc623: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed)

When an employee has established a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the employer to "rebut th[is] presumption of discrimination." Id. at 254, 101 S.Ct. 1089. To do so, the employer must "produc[e] evidence that" it acted "for a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason." Id. "This burden is one of production, not persuasion; it can involve no credibility assessment." Reeves , 530 U.S. at 142, 120 S.Ct. 2097 (internal quotation marks omitted).

Judicial proof protocol: Westmoreland applies McDonnell Douglas to circumstantial ADEA claims in the Fourth Circuit; plaintiff retains ultimate persuasion. The prima-facie facts vary by challenged action. This is not a statutory pleading checklist or a shift of the Gross persuasion burden.

interpretation

At the final stage, "the McDonnell Douglas framework - with its presumptions and burdens - disappear[s]." Id. at 142-43, 120 S.Ct. 2097 (internal quotation marks omitted). The employee must "prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the legitimate reasons offered by the defendant[-employer] were not its true reasons, but were a pretext for discrimination." Burdine , 450 U.S. at 253, 101 S.Ct. 1089. "The ultimate burden of persuading the trier of fact" remains with the employee "at all times." Id.

Westmoreland v. TWC Administration, LLC — 924 F.3d 718 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2019 (29usc623: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed)

At the final stage, "the McDonnell Douglas framework - with its presumptions and burdens - disappear[s]." Id. at 142-43, 120 S.Ct. 2097 (internal quotation marks omitted). The employee must "prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the legitimate reasons offered by the defendant[-employer] were not its true reasons, but were a pretext for discrimination." Burdine , 450 U.S. at 253, 101 S.Ct. 1089. "The ultimate burden of persuading the trier of fact" remains with the employee "at all times." Id.

Judicial proof protocol: Westmoreland applies McDonnell Douglas to circumstantial ADEA claims in the Fourth Circuit; plaintiff retains ultimate persuasion. The prima-facie facts vary by challenged action. This is not a statutory pleading checklist or a shift of the Gross persuasion burden.