Need pdf viewer for iPad?
Visit iTunes for:
iAnnotate PDF

Garland's Digest
on employment discrimination law
online since 1997
 

 

Disclaimer: The case on which this summary is based may no longer be current law. Also, if the case was decided on summary judgment, the court recited the "facts" in the light most favorable to the non-movant, which may not be the true facts.

-------------------------

Mitchell v. USBI Co., 186 F.3d 1352 (11th Cir. September 1, 1999)

Keywords: ADEA (reduction in force)

Introduction: Raymond Mitchell sued USBI under the ADEA after he was terminated in a reduction in force. The district court granted summary judgment on behalf of USBI. The Eleventh Circuit affirms.

Facts: After NASA canceled a USBI program known as the "ASRB program," USBI implemented a reduction in force. USBI's written layoff policy mandated that employees who worked on the ASRB program be laid off first. Also, more senior employees slated for layoff could bump less senior employees in the same job classification or job family.

Mitchell's supervisors determined that his job functions would either be eliminated by the loss of the ASRB program or could be absorbed by other employees. Also, it was determined that he was not qualified to bump any of the 20 less senior employees who worked in his job classification or job family.

There is also a dispute whether his prior job evaluations were considered in deciding to select him for layoff. His former supervisor claims he gave Mitchell lower evaluations for three years because of his age.

Law:

1. The issue is whether Mitchell presented sufficient evidence of pretext.
   1. Mitchell argues that he was qualified to bump less senior employees. But the evidence does not support this argument.
   2. Mitchell argues that certain USBI employees made age-based remarks. But these employees were not decisionmakers.
   3. Mitchell argues that his evaluations were discriminatory and that they were considered in the decisionmaking process. But there were specific objective justifications given as to why Mitchell could not bump a less senior employee -- and he did not provide evidence to the contrary.
   4. Mitchell argues that USBI failed to follow its stated policy of first laying off employees who worked on the ASRB program. But deviation from a company policy, standing alone, does not demonstrate discriminatory animus.
2. Therefore, the Eleventh Circuit affirms the grant of summary judgment in favor of USBI.
3. Click here to see actual case.