Acevedo-Parrilla v. Novartis Ex-Lax, Inc.
696 F.3d 128
| 1st Cir. | 2012Background
- Acevedo, born 1951, was Ex-Lax’s Maintenance and Engineering Manager in Humacao, Puerto Rico for 11 years before termination in 2007 at age 56.
- Ceinos became Site Leader in 2003 and evaluated Acevedo; he implemented a plan targeting employees near retirement and emphasized adherence to SOPs.
- From 2004–2006 Acevedo’s department faced several incidents (rodents, bacteria, packaging deviations) leading to performance reviews and a 2005 PIP, which Acevedo completed successfully.
- In 2006 Acevedo faced multiple incidents; Ceinos blamed him for noncompliance with quality controls, and Acevedo was terminated February 23, 2007.
- Rivera, 34, replaced Acevedo in 2007 and, by 2008, departmental audits showed ongoing SOP violations under Rivera’s leadership, with no corresponding discipline.
- Plaintiff alleges age-based discrimination evidenced by Ceinos’s remarks about long-tenured employees and by disparate treatment compared to the younger replacement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prima facie ADEA showing present? | Acevedo met prima facie by age, firing, and younger replacement. | Termination based on performance/quality-control failures; Acevedo not qualified due to incidents. | Yes, prima facie established. |
| Legitimate nondiscriminatory reason shown? | Ex-Lax’s reasons are pretextual given performance history and PIP compliance. | Incidents and failure to meet standards justify dismissal. | Ex-Lax articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason. |
| Pretext evidence sufficient to survive summary judgment? | Inconsistencies in Ceinos’s explanations show pretext. | Discrepancies are not enough to prove pretext; business judgment governs. | Yes, sufficient to present pretext evidence. |
| Discriminatory intent shown, not just pretext? | Remarks about long-tenured employees and younger replacement imply age animus; disparate treatment strengthens inference. | Remarks and disparate treatment are not definitively linked to the decision or are not sufficiently proximate. | Evidence, viewed collectively, could support age discrimination. |
| Disparate treatment of Rivera supports pretext? | Rivera’s similar violations went unpunished; Acevedo faced discipline for similar issues. | Rivera and Acevedo were not similarly situated; different contexts. | Jury could find disparate treatment; supports discrimination theory. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gross v. FBL Financial Servs., Inc., 557 F.3d 167 (U.S. 2009) (but-for causation governs ADEA claims)
- Vélez v. Thermo King de P.R., Inc., 585 F.3d 441 (1st Cir. 2009) (establishes McDonnell Douglas framework and low prima facie standard)
- Cameron v. Idearc Media Corp., 685 F.3d 44 (1st Cir. 2012) (three-stage McDonnell Douglas framework in ADEA)
- Mesnick v. Gen. Elec. Co., 950 F.2d 816 (1st Cir. 1991) (pretext framework and inference of discrimination from evidence)
- Hodgens v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 144 F.3d 151 (1st Cir. 1998) (pretext analysis and proximity to decision matter)