4.500 McDonnell Douglas prima facie case
4.570
Sufficient evidence of discrimination prong
4.571 Must the person treated more favorably be outside the protected
class?
4.571.20 Reduction in force cases
3d Circuit
In
Showalter v. University of Pittsburgh Medical Center,
190 F.3d 231 (3d Cir. 1999), the court noted that the Third Circuit has
previously held that the fourth factor in an ADEA RIF case was that the
plaintiff must show that the employer retained "unprotected workers." The court
went on to hold that based on O'Connor v. Consolidated Coin Caterers Corp.,
517 U.S. 308 (1996), the fourth prong should be whether the employer retained
"substantially younger" workers. Id. at 235.
8th Circuit
In
Stidham v. Minnesota Min. and Mfg., Inc., 399 F.3d
935, 939 (8th Cir. 2005), the court explained:
In reduction in force cases, it must be expected that
some duties will be taken on by other employees.
Chambers, 351 F.3d
at 855-58. Thus, the mere fact that younger persons took on some of her
responsibilities is not sufficient evidence of age discrimination. See
Hanebrink, 110 F.3d at 646 (finding evidence of a younger person
assuming job responsibilities of an older displaced worker by itself was not
enough to prove the prima facie case).