Jones v. Oklahoma City Public Schools,
a Tenth Circuit opinion, is an important read for practitioners handling ADEA claims. The plaintiff had been employed since 1969 and had risen in the system to an executive position. In 20007 a new superintendent eliminated the position plaintiff held, but renamed it and filled it with a younger worker. More after the jump
Plaintiff was reassigned as a principal of an elementary school with an immediate reduction of vacation benefits and a diminution of retirement benefits. A year later her salary was reduced by $17,000. Plaintiff sued, and the trial court granted the employer summary judgment despite the evidence of age related comments about the plaintiff, because Plaintiff failed to show any additional evidence that age played a role in the decision.The Tenth Circuit addressed many issues the first of which was the "but for" causation standard set out in
Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. The Tenth Circuit held the "but for"
standard does ‘not require [plaintiffs] to show that age was the sole motivating factor in the employment decision.’ (Citations omitted). Instead, an employer may be held liable under the ADEA if other factors contributed to its taking an adverse action, as long as ‘age was the factor that made a difference.’
Second, the Court found the
McDonnell Douglas framework applied, and that circumstantial evidence may prove discrimination. The Court also rejected the curious argument the actions taken against the plaintiff we not adverse, finding the pension and vacation issues sufficient as well as the immediate loss of $5 a day in pay and the subsequent loss to $17,000 a year to be sufficiently adverse.
The Court found pretext alone can be sufficient proof of discrimination, rejecting the Defendant's pretext plus argumnet.Defendant's position that pretext alone cannot establish discrimination.
Posts
