United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi · 2019-01-18
29usc623: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)
Case and law context
Role: applied; posture: civil; ADEA disparate treatment and disparate impact; employer motion for summary judgment granted in part and denied in part by SD Miss; result: mixed; claim:
Uncertainty
None recorded
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rogers v. Medline Indus., Inc. — 361 F. Supp. 3d 616 (2019) · United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi · 2019 (29usc623: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rogers v. Medline Indus., Inc. — 361 F. Supp. 3d 616 (2019) · United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi · 2019 (29usc623: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | ✗ not · no-evidenceNot counted: applied/alternative | · 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rogers v. Medline Indus., Inc. — 361 F. Supp. 3d 616 (2019) · United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi · 2019 (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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rogers v. Medline Indus., Inc. — 361 F. Supp. 3d 616 (2019) · United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi · 2019 (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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rogers v. Medline Indus., Inc. — 361 F. Supp. 3d 616 (2019) · United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi · 2019 (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 |
|---|---|
| Rogers v. Medline Indus., Inc. — 361 F. Supp. 3d 616 (2019) · United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi · 2019 (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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rogers v. Medline Indus., Inc. — 361 F. Supp. 3d 616 (2019) · United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi · 2019 — satisfied · triable (29usc623: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Judicial but-for standard for age-based treatment | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: triable The court rejects the 2013 remark as direct evidence and as circumstantial evidence of animus, and rejects the list of terminated older salespersons; the triable issue rests on falsity of the stated reasons alone (Reeves). | corrective action plan planned before any documented customer complaint, non-mandatory incentive quota, earlier lower quota results tolerated; one remote age remark held not probative | Prior to the implementation of the corrective action plan generally noting some complaints, the record is in fact barren of documented customer complaints.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_361.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/361/0616-01; Unicode character offsets [37189:37344] (end exclusive); SHA-256 2143e6e4f5eb47581a48a6456883ef0a33ea83acc69f8ba50f47224c3eb47c2e.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."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_361.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/361/0616-01; Unicode character offsets [39163:39363] (end exclusive); SHA-256 2143e6e4f5eb47581a48a6456883ef0a33ea83acc69f8ba50f47224c3eb47c2e.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_361.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/361/0616-01; Unicode character offsets [41032:41343] (end exclusive); SHA-256 2143e6e4f5eb47581a48a6456883ef0a33ea83acc69f8ba50f47224c3eb47c2e.It is undisputed that Rogers never met Medline's established sales quotas from 2012 until the date of his termination in 2016.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_361.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/361/0616-01; Unicode character offsets [3762:3888] (end exclusive); SHA-256 2143e6e4f5eb47581a48a6456883ef0a33ea83acc69f8ba50f47224c3eb47c2e.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_361.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/361/0616-01; Unicode character offsets [23487:23673] (end exclusive); SHA-256 2143e6e4f5eb47581a48a6456883ef0a33ea83acc69f8ba50f47224c3eb47c2e."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."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_361.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/361/0616-01; Unicode character offsets [40213:40429] (end exclusive); SHA-256 2143e6e4f5eb47581a48a6456883ef0a33ea83acc69f8ba50f47224c3eb47c2e.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_361.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/361/0616-01; Unicode character offsets [41344:41541] (end exclusive); SHA-256 2143e6e4f5eb47581a48a6456883ef0a33ea83acc69f8ba50f47224c3eb47c2e. |
| Rogers v. Medline Indus., Inc. — 361 F. Supp. 3d 616 (2019) · United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi · 2019 — 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 | specialty salesperson terminated for substandard performance after a corrective action plan; prima facie case conceded for the motion | Medline terminated Rogers' employment effective July 31, 2016.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_361.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/361/0616-01; Unicode character offsets [10759:10821] (end exclusive); SHA-256 2143e6e4f5eb47581a48a6456883ef0a33ea83acc69f8ba50f47224c3eb47c2e.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_361.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/361/0616-01; Unicode character offsets [26285:26439] (end exclusive); SHA-256 2143e6e4f5eb47581a48a6456883ef0a33ea83acc69f8ba50f47224c3eb47c2e. |
| Rogers v. Medline Indus., Inc. — 361 F. Supp. 3d 616 (2019) · United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi · 2019 — not · waived (29usc623: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Judicial impact requirement to identify a particular practice | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: waived The abandonment disposes of the whole disparate-impact claim; it is recorded on neutral-practice because that is the element the court's alternative ruling addresses. | disparate-impact theory pleaded but expressly disclaimed in the summary-judgment response | In fact, Rogers states in the final footnote of his Response [70] that "[he] is not traveling under a disparate impact theory."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_361.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/361/0616-01; Unicode character offsets [18544:18671] (end exclusive); SHA-256 2143e6e4f5eb47581a48a6456883ef0a33ea83acc69f8ba50f47224c3eb47c2e.The Court finds that Rogers has abandoned his claim of disparate impact.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_361.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/361/0616-01; Unicode character offsets [18817:18889] (end exclusive); SHA-256 2143e6e4f5eb47581a48a6456883ef0a33ea83acc69f8ba50f47224c3eb47c2e. |
| Rogers v. Medline Indus., Inc. — 361 F. Supp. 3d 616 (2019) · United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi · 2019 — not · no-evidence (29usc623: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Judicial impact requirement to identify a particular practice | not Excluded from merits counts applied / alternative basis: no-evidence | no employment policy identified at all; only a list of terminated older salespersons | Instead, the employee is "responsible for isolating and identifying the specific employment practices that are allegedly responsible for any observed statistical disparities."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_361.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/361/0616-01; Unicode character offsets [17606:17781] (end exclusive); SHA-256 2143e6e4f5eb47581a48a6456883ef0a33ea83acc69f8ba50f47224c3eb47c2e.Rogers has not identified or isolated any neutral employment policy to form the basis of such a claim.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_361.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/361/0616-01; Unicode character offsets [19057:19159] (end exclusive); SHA-256 2143e6e4f5eb47581a48a6456883ef0a33ea83acc69f8ba50f47224c3eb47c2e. |