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.

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

Brown v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 113 F.3d 139 (8th Cir. May 9, 1997)

Keywords: ADEA (reduction in force)

Introduction: Daymon Brown sued his former employer under the ADEA for age discrimination as a result of his termination during a reduction in force. The district court granted summary judgment on behalf of McDonnell Douglas. The Eighth Circuit affirms.

Facts: In March of 1992, Brown was terminated as part of a reduction in force. He was 53 years old. However, he was given the opportunity to apply for other positions within McDonnell Douglas. In April of 1992, Brown accepted a position with a different work group. At the time he was hired for this new position, Ronald Ruethain, his new supervisor, told him that because of his high salary, his chances of getting a raise or promotion were "slim to none." This was acceptable to Brown. At the time Brown moved to Ruethain's work group, he was the highest paid employee within the group. In July of 1992, Ruethain gave Brown a mid-year evaluation in which he rated Brown as requiring improvement or needing corrective action on eleven of twelve factors. There was other evidence that Brown was "coasting" -- he was reading magazines; he fell asleep at a meeting; and he left work early. At the time of Brown's evaluation, Ruethain told him that he could have hired a young college graduate at one-half the same salary to do the same work. In August of 1992, Ruethain was informed that there was going to be a reduction in force and that he should rank his employees. Brown was ranked lowest and was terminated -- along with six other employees.

Law:

1. In order to establish a prima facie case in the context of a reduction in force, a plaintiff must show that:
   1. he or she was at least 40 years old at the time of discharge;
   2. he or she satisfied the applicable job qualifications;
   3. he or she was discharged; and
   4. there is some additional evidence that age was a factor in the termination.
2. The Eighth Circuit questions whether Brown established a prima facie case, but it decides to assume that he did.
3. McDonnell Douglas offered a nondiscriminatory reason for Brown's termination (his performance).
4. Brown did not present evidence to show that his proffered reason was pretextual.
5. Ruethain did not even know there was going to be a reduction in force when he gave Brown the poor evaluation.
6. Ruethain's comment that he could have hired a young college graduate at one-half the salary is not evidence of discriminatory animus. Employment decisions motivated by characteristics other than age (such as salary and pension benefits), even when such characteristics correlate with age, do not constitute age discrimination.
7. It is simply incredible to believe that Ruethain who had hired Brown at age 53 suddenly developed an aversion to older people less than five months later.
8. Finally, Brown's statistical evidence is not probative of pretext in that it fails to analyze the treatment of comparable employees.
9. Click here to see actual case.