AND · 29usc623:age-causation
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.
Exact element source
because of such individual's age;Source:
docroot/ir/usc/title29.jsonl#title29_sec623; Unicode character offsets [293:326] (end exclusive); SHA-256 d7414b39849853d6a6068539da731f835b09d9f238c028f95f2d0dd04fb6f667.Routes and case patterns
| Route | Definition | Merits instance blocks | Distinct merits cases | Examples (up to 3 cases per count group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| age-correlated-factor provisional; provisional (1 case) | Whether a decision based on a factor correlated with age is a decision because of age (Hazen Paper). | 1 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 0 | 1 | Bryan v. Gov't of the V.I. — 916 F.3d 242 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2019 — not · law (29usc623: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted |
| pretext-inference provisional; 8 observed cases | Whether age was the but-for cause, inferred circumstantially from the weakness of the employer's reason, age-related remarks, replacement or comparison evidence. | 8 Satisfied 4; not satisfied 4; excluded context 0 | 8 | Jardin v. CoxCom, LLC — 320 F. Supp. 3d 373 (2018) · United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island · 2018 — not · no-evidence (29usc623: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted Williams v. Temple Univ. Hosp., Inc. — 345 F. Supp. 3d 590 (2018) · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania · 2018 — satisfied · triable (29usc623: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted 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)) · applied/merits · counted |
| prima-facie-case provisional; 2 observed cases | Whether the plaintiff made the prima facie showing that raises an inference of age discrimination. | 2 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 2; excluded context 0 | 2 | 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)) · applied/merits · counted McDaniel v. Progress Rail Locomotive — 343 F. Supp. 3d 753 (2018) · United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois · 2018 — not · no-evidence (29usc623: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jardin v. CoxCom, LLC — 320 F. Supp. 3d 373 (2018) · United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island · 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 | supervisor's two "weird old man" remarks five months before a discharge for admitted misconduct decided by HR; no nexus | Immediately after Mr, Andrukiewicz started as interim supervisor and five months prior to Mr. Jardin's termination, in two different department meetings, Mr. Andrukiewicz referred to Mr. Jardin as a "weird old man."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_320.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/320/0373-01; Unicode character offsets [1302:1517] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3880383b0cbf8c64d3e26aee378796f1c7a16868ce8be0315ee37595393d4faa.During the interview, as well as in his deposition, Mr. Jardin admitted to dropping the trash on the customer's premises and failing to pick it up, but asserted that he did not intentionally litter.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_320.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/320/0373-01; Unicode character offsets [2385:2583] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3880383b0cbf8c64d3e26aee378796f1c7a16868ce8be0315ee37595393d4faa.In addition, although Mr. Andrukiewicz supported the decision to terminate Mr. Jardin for his misconduct, he was not primarily responsible for doing so; Human Resources Manager William Roccio made this final decision.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_320.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/320/0373-01; Unicode character offsets [10557:10774] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3880383b0cbf8c64d3e26aee378796f1c7a16868ce8be0315ee37595393d4faa.Mr. Andrukiewicz made these remarks around four to five months prior to Mr. Jardin's termination.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_320.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/320/0373-01; Unicode character offsets [10881:10978] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3880383b0cbf8c64d3e26aee378796f1c7a16868ce8be0315ee37595393d4faa.Where isolated remarks-like those attributed to Mr. Andrukiewicz here-lack specific timing or context or linkage to the adverse employment decision, they are insufficient to prove an employer's discriminatory animus.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_320.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/320/0373-01; Unicode character offsets [10979:11195] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3880383b0cbf8c64d3e26aee378796f1c7a16868ce8be0315ee37595393d4faa.On the final element, after reviewing the evidence, the Court finds that Mr. Jardin failed to present evidence that his age was the real reason Cox fired him.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_320.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/320/0373-01; Unicode character offsets [9677:9835] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3880383b0cbf8c64d3e26aee378796f1c7a16868ce8be0315ee37595393d4faa. |
| 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. |
| McDaniel v. Progress Rail Locomotive — 343 F. Supp. 3d 753 (2018) · United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois · 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 | no specific similarly situated younger comparator named; discharge by a separate safety committee for an admitted lifting violation | Plaintiff fails to set forth a single, specific comparator employee, giving this Court no opportunity to conduct the "meaningful comparison" required in Barricks .Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_343.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/343/0753-01; Unicode character offsets [23939:24102] (end exclusive); SHA-256 87ca235fdbd4d9547b55f168a055290b7387b2c0df73056c5fa74b73dc63d293.Finally, although Plaintiff does state that both Alex and Rudy "could have been" in their 30s, and therefore younger than Plaintiff, he fails to provide any information about them other than that they were under Howard's supervision.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_343.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/343/0753-01; Unicode character offsets [28679:28912] (end exclusive); SHA-256 87ca235fdbd4d9547b55f168a055290b7387b2c0df73056c5fa74b73dc63d293.Neither party disputes that the material at issue was over 100 pounds-well over Progress Rail's 35-pound lifting limit.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_343.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/343/0753-01; Unicode character offsets [31657:31776] (end exclusive); SHA-256 87ca235fdbd4d9547b55f168a055290b7387b2c0df73056c5fa74b73dc63d293.And the Safety Committee at no point mentioned or referenced Plaintiff's age.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_343.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/343/0753-01; Unicode character offsets [32678:32755] (end exclusive); SHA-256 87ca235fdbd4d9547b55f168a055290b7387b2c0df73056c5fa74b73dc63d293.The Seventh Circuit has held that to allow for this meaningful comparison, a typical McDonnell Douglas plaintiff must show, at a minimum, that the comparators: "(1) dealt with the same supervisor, (2) were subject to the same standards, and (3) engaged in similar conduct without such differentiating or mitigating circumstances as would distinguish their conduct or the employer's treatment of them."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_343.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/343/0753-01; Unicode character offsets [23400:23801] (end exclusive); SHA-256 87ca235fdbd4d9547b55f168a055290b7387b2c0df73056c5fa74b73dc63d293.Plaintiff has therefore failed to establish a prima facie case of ADEA discrimination.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_343.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/343/0753-01; Unicode character offsets [30075:30161] (end exclusive); SHA-256 87ca235fdbd4d9547b55f168a055290b7387b2c0df73056c5fa74b73dc63d293.There is simply no evidence to suggest his age played a role in these decisions.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_343.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/343/0753-01; Unicode character offsets [35893:35973] (end exclusive); SHA-256 87ca235fdbd4d9547b55f168a055290b7387b2c0df73056c5fa74b73dc63d293. |
| Williams v. Temple Univ. Hosp., Inc. — 345 F. Supp. 3d 590 (2018) · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania · 2018 — 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 argument that the discipline policy was misapplied; the triable issue rests on discretionary, possibly differential, enforcement and the retirement note. The only contested prima facie element was qualification, resolved for the plaintiff on his 28-year tenure. | discretionary progressive discipline for cell-phone use, informal warnings available, plus a termination note referring to the employee being close to retirement | First, Julia admits that there is a large discretionary component to his application of the Policy.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_345.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/345/0590-01; Unicode character offsets [20102:20201] (end exclusive); SHA-256 2c040a7faa7b2bf3812085889f85d0698b55b28046d019258c005b9a4fb7b6c1.The evidence consists of a note stating "Term - Jan - on phone - ignored Joe," followed by "Joe thinks he's close to retirement; not sure when retiring").Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_345.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/345/0590-01; Unicode character offsets [21262:21416] (end exclusive); SHA-256 2c040a7faa7b2bf3812085889f85d0698b55b28046d019258c005b9a4fb7b6c1.Temple has produced that photograph, and Plaintiff does not dispute that it is indeed an image of him playing video games on his cell phone.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_345.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/345/0590-01; Unicode character offsets [2901:3041] (end exclusive); SHA-256 2c040a7faa7b2bf3812085889f85d0698b55b28046d019258c005b9a4fb7b6c1.The record reflects that Julia hired Plaintiff for a role in the linen department when Plaintiff was in his late fifties, which seemingly cuts against a bias based on age,Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_345.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/345/0590-01; Unicode character offsets [21628:21799] (end exclusive); SHA-256 2c040a7faa7b2bf3812085889f85d0698b55b28046d019258c005b9a4fb7b6c1.To demonstrate pretext, Plaintiff needs to point to some direct or circumstantial evidence from which a factfinder could reasonably either (1) disbelieve the employer's articulated legitimate reason or (2) believe that an invidious discriminatory reason was more likely than not a motivating or determinative cause of the employer's action.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_345.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/345/0590-01; Unicode character offsets [16845:17185] (end exclusive); SHA-256 2c040a7faa7b2bf3812085889f85d0698b55b28046d019258c005b9a4fb7b6c1.Williams' case is far from robust, but Temple asks me to draw far too many inferences adverse to Plaintiff when the prevailing standard requires exactly the opposite.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_345.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/345/0590-01; Unicode character offsets [21944:22110] (end exclusive); SHA-256 2c040a7faa7b2bf3812085889f85d0698b55b28046d019258c005b9a4fb7b6c1.In all other respects, I deny Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_345.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/345/0590-01; Unicode character offsets [22181:22251] (end exclusive); SHA-256 2c040a7faa7b2bf3812085889f85d0698b55b28046d019258c005b9a4fb7b6c1. |
| 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. |
| Richardson v. Astec, Inc. — 366 F. Supp. 3d 983 (2019) · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee · 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 | disputed-misconduct-complaint-plus-retirement-inquiries-and-undisciplined-younger-comparator | Richardson also testified that two or three days before her termination, McMahan asked when she was going to retire, noting that she was about to be seventy years old.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_366.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/366/0983-01; Unicode character offsets [14003:14170] (end exclusive); SHA-256 58eda9414a4fe9f2012d19b3411a56611a06836293a830dc45acfba99af15f94.Astec does not point to any evidence suggesting that Oswald was not expected to comply with Astec's core values or that McMahan subsequently disciplined him for his alleged conduct.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_366.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/366/0983-01; Unicode character offsets [35150:35331] (end exclusive); SHA-256 58eda9414a4fe9f2012d19b3411a56611a06836293a830dc45acfba99af15f94.Additionally, Richardson has submitted a declaration from Debbie Daugherty in which she avers that Richardson never made her cry and that she refused to report Richardson to human resources despite Oswald's urging.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_366.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/366/0983-01; Unicode character offsets [37722:37936] (end exclusive); SHA-256 58eda9414a4fe9f2012d19b3411a56611a06836293a830dc45acfba99af15f94.McMahan maintains any questions about Richardson's retirement plans were solely for purposes of succession planning, citing the need to ensure that certain responsibilities were covered in the event an employee resigned, retired, or otherwise ended their employment relationship with Astec.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_366.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/366/0983-01; Unicode character offsets [14294:14584] (end exclusive); SHA-256 58eda9414a4fe9f2012d19b3411a56611a06836293a830dc45acfba99af15f94.An employee can demonstrate pretext by providing evidence that the employer's reason for terminating her: (1) had no basis in fact; (2) did not actually motivate the discharge; or (3) was insufficient to motivate the discharge.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_366.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/366/0983-01; Unicode character offsets [36302:36529] (end exclusive); SHA-256 58eda9414a4fe9f2012d19b3411a56611a06836293a830dc45acfba99af15f94.Accordingly, Richardson has provided sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that Astec's stated reason for firing Richardson was actually pretext for age discrimination.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_366.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/366/0983-01; Unicode character offsets [38667:38861] (end exclusive); SHA-256 58eda9414a4fe9f2012d19b3411a56611a06836293a830dc45acfba99af15f94. |
| Wrolstad v. CUNA Mutual Insurance Society — 911 F.3d 450 (2018) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2018 — not · no-evidence (29usc623: author: Astra4 · QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2-crosscheck.md)) | Judicial but-for standard for age-based treatment | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: no-evidence The court affirms summary judgment on the actual ADEA treatment claim. Separate new material was forfeited, and the court also discusses it alternatively; that does not turn this case into a rule-only decision. | hiring/customer-service-and-pay-range-reasons | CUNA Mutual articulated several legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for preferring Logemann: (1) he had customer-service experience (Wrolstad did not); (2) he showed great enthusiasm for the position; and (3) he was willing to work for a salary within the range established for the job (Wrolstad was not).Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_911.jsonl#/f3d/911/0450-01; Unicode character offsets [15302:15608] (end exclusive); SHA-256 97257ab311a87aaf0349728d2a81d41258a880a37fd76ec64f8b0cd257d6efbc.No evidence suggests that these reasons were pretextual.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_911.jsonl#/f3d/911/0450-01; Unicode character offsets [15609:15665] (end exclusive); SHA-256 97257ab311a87aaf0349728d2a81d41258a880a37fd76ec64f8b0cd257d6efbc.The judge was right to enter summary judgment for CUNA Mutual on the age-discrimination claim.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_911.jsonl#/f3d/911/0450-01; Unicode character offsets [15666:15760] (end exclusive); SHA-256 97257ab311a87aaf0349728d2a81d41258a880a37fd76ec64f8b0cd257d6efbc. |
| Bryan v. Gov't of the V.I. — 916 F.3d 242 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2019 — not · law (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: law | extra-pension-contribution-imposed-on-employees-with-thirty-years-credited-service | VIESA does not discuss age or any stereotypes based on age.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_916.jsonl#/f3d/916/0242-01; Unicode character offsets [6391:6450] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3eeb4c2bddea563ba9dc6395f677bf8897b1fa89736c53341a10b4855ff2d474.But while it is true that every Government employee with thirty years of service is over 40 (because the Government does not hire nine-year-olds), Bryan and Thomas point to nothing in the record to establish that all System members in the protected class have achieved thirty years of credited service.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_916.jsonl#/f3d/916/0242-01; Unicode character offsets [7779:8081] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3eeb4c2bddea563ba9dc6395f677bf8897b1fa89736c53341a10b4855ff2d474.And although an employer may not use a direct proxy for age to discriminate surreptitiously against older workers, an employee's tenure (without more) is not such a direct proxy.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_916.jsonl#/f3d/916/0242-01; Unicode character offsets [5863:6041] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3eeb4c2bddea563ba9dc6395f677bf8897b1fa89736c53341a10b4855ff2d474.In sum, because Section 7(k) was motivated by factors other than age-factors that are not direct proxies for age-it does not violate the ADEA's bar on disparate treatment.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_916.jsonl#/f3d/916/0242-01; Unicode character offsets [8340:8511] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3eeb4c2bddea563ba9dc6395f677bf8897b1fa89736c53341a10b4855ff2d474. |
| Westmoreland v. TWC Administration, LLC — 924 F.3d 718 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · proved (29usc623: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed) | 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. |
| Heisler v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. — 931 F.3d 786 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2019 — not · no-evidence (29usc623: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed) | Judicial but-for standard for age-based treatment | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: no-evidence The court applies the ADEA but-for requirement and finds insufficient pretext evidence. This annotation is the ADEA component; Title VII/state-law components are not treated as identical legal standards. | pretext/inadequate-qualification-comparison | But there is evidence of awkward interviews and some unsavvy conduct, which is at least an arguable basis for Nationwide's purported motives.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_931.jsonl#/f3d/931/0786-01; Unicode character offsets [29089:29230] (end exclusive); SHA-256 bd7d6abcc578d40db50a1a656b87abe9556b06a3f8b2abc86266be2f2a7da446.She needed to use the qualifications comparison evidence to prove pretext, and she did not introduce enough evidence to meet her burden in that way.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_931.jsonl#/f3d/931/0786-01; Unicode character offsets [29231:29379] (end exclusive); SHA-256 bd7d6abcc578d40db50a1a656b87abe9556b06a3f8b2abc86266be2f2a7da446.Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment that Heisler failed to meet her burden of production to show pretext.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_931.jsonl#/f3d/931/0786-01; Unicode character offsets [29380:29502] (end exclusive); SHA-256 bd7d6abcc578d40db50a1a656b87abe9556b06a3f8b2abc86266be2f2a7da446. |
| McMichael v. Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. — 934 F.3d 447 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2019 — not · no-evidence (29usc623: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed) | Judicial but-for standard for age-based treatment | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: no-evidence The employer’s reduction in force does not automatically defeat an age claim. The selected evidence addresses the remark’s context and lack of connection to the decisionmaker. | reduction-in-force/retirement-reference-without-decision-link | Between 2014 and 2018, the defendants, Transocean Offshore Deepwater et al., reduced their offshore fleet by 59%.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_934.jsonl#/f3d/934/0447-01; Unicode character offsets [30:143] (end exclusive); SHA-256 62ed31abd3cdc9f89edbacbe3cc8eec107e92aa53ae9b66a666acec6dbb84908.And no other evidence shows, or even suggests, that Owen had any influence over the decision to terminate McMichael.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_934.jsonl#/f3d/934/0447-01; Unicode character offsets [20860:20976] (end exclusive); SHA-256 62ed31abd3cdc9f89edbacbe3cc8eec107e92aa53ae9b66a666acec6dbb84908.Because we agree that McMichael failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact, we AFFIRM.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_934.jsonl#/f3d/934/0447-01; Unicode character offsets [893:985] (end exclusive); SHA-256 62ed31abd3cdc9f89edbacbe3cc8eec107e92aa53ae9b66a666acec6dbb84908. |
Court interpretations
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.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.
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).Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_924.jsonl#/f3d/924/0718-01; Unicode character offsets [10698:11145] (end exclusive); SHA-256 c3db8421f8bbdeed51d7a4a2861e257d49fa1027dc6214fb9bd49f864ac871a3.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.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_924.jsonl#/f3d/924/0718-01; Unicode character offsets [11146:11651] (end exclusive); SHA-256 c3db8421f8bbdeed51d7a4a2861e257d49fa1027dc6214fb9bd49f864ac871a3.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.