United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2019-05-22
Case and law context
Role: applied; posture: appellate review after jury trial; result: claimant-won; claim:
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Variant | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| /f3d/924/0718-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2019 | Judicial but-for standard for age-based treatment | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved The Fourth Circuit affirmed the jury's proved but-for inference from the full evidentiary record, not from the isolated remark alone. | pretext/grandbabies-remark-and-younger-replacement | After delivering the firing decision to Westmoreland, Carroway gathered Westmoreland's belongings and escorted her out of the building. While walking to Westmoreland's car, Carroway stated, "Oh, girl, you don't have nothing to worry about. You'll get another job. Just go home and take care of those grandbabies." TWC chose one of Westmoreland's subordinates, a 37-year-old, to replace her. The company did not take any disciplinary action against Sherrill, who was then 43 years of age.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_924.jsonl#/f3d/924/0718-01; Unicode character offsets [6333:6820] (end exclusive); SHA-256 c3db8421f8bbdeed51d7a4a2861e257d49fa1027dc6214fb9bd49f864ac871a3.Taken as a whole, this evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to determine that TWC's justification was pretextual and that the company fired Westmoreland to make room for a younger worker.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_924.jsonl#/f3d/924/0718-01; Unicode character offsets [12847:13043] (end exclusive); SHA-256 c3db8421f8bbdeed51d7a4a2861e257d49fa1027dc6214fb9bd49f864ac871a3. |
| /f3d/924/0718-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2019 | Hiring discharge or employment terms | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved Jury verdict and appellate review of an ADEA discharge claim. | discharge/employer-terminated-worker | After TWC Administration, LLC, d/b/a Time Warner Cable ("TWC"), fired Glenda Westmoreland, she filed this actionSource: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_924.jsonl#/f3d/924/0718-01; Unicode character offsets [35:147] (end exclusive); SHA-256 c3db8421f8bbdeed51d7a4a2861e257d49fa1027dc6214fb9bd49f864ac871a3.Because TWC cannot overcome that hurdle, we affirm.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_924.jsonl#/f3d/924/0718-01; Unicode character offsets [690:741] (end exclusive); SHA-256 c3db8421f8bbdeed51d7a4a2861e257d49fa1027dc6214fb9bd49f864ac871a3. |
Court interpretations recorded from this case
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.
/f3d/924/0718-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2019
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.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_924.jsonl#/f3d/924/0718-01; Unicode character offsets [8471:9075] (end exclusive); SHA-256 c3db8421f8bbdeed51d7a4a2861e257d49fa1027dc6214fb9bd49f864ac871a3.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.