Allen v. USPS, 63 F.4th 292

Anastasia Nedd Allen, age 53–54, was hired as a USPS probationary city carrier assistant in April 2018, fired before probation lapsed, filed an EEO complaint, and was reinstated under a renewed 90‑day probation in December 2018.
During the renewed probation USPS managers rated Allen’s performance as "unacceptable" and terminated her on February 26, 2019; Allen contends supervisors sabotaged her ability to perform (hid mail, withheld keys, altered clock rings) and submitted a detailed affidavit and a shop‑steward declaration supporting that account.
Allen alleges age‑related remarks by supervisors (Porche: dislikes hiring older workers because they get hurt; Lagrue: told her to get her "old ass" back to work) and points to a younger coworker as treated more favorably.
Allen also applied for three other USPS positions after reinstatement; one Metairie offer was rescinded in May 2019, which she contends was retaliatory because of her EEO activity.
The district court granted summary judgment to USPS on all claims; on appeal the Fifth Circuit affirmed dismissal of several abandoned claims but reversed and remanded on: (1) ADEA age‑discrimination claim as to the Feb. 26, 2019 termination, (2) ADEA retaliation claim as to that termination, and (3) ADEA retaliation claim as to the May 2019 rescinded Metairie offer.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Allen established a prima facie ADEA age‑discrimination claim for the Feb. 26, 2019 termination	Allen: supervisors made ageist remarks, treated younger carrier (Bickman) more favorably, and submitted affidavit evidence creating dispute about performance and sabotage.	USPS: Allen was fired for legitimate, nondiscriminatory poor performance (documented evaluations).	Reversed — material fact disputes (ageist remarks, comparator, affidavit evidence) preclude summary judgment; claim proceeds.
Whether Allen showed ADEA retaliation for protected EEO activity in connection with the Feb. 26, 2019 termination	Allen: she engaged in protected EEO activity Jan. 6, 2019; temporal proximity plus evidence that management learned of complaint, and her affidavit shows pretext for termination.	USPS: timing is too remote; proffered nondiscriminatory reason is poor performance.	Reversed — seven‑week proximity plus disputed factual issues about manager knowledge and pretext defeat summary judgment.
Whether rescission of May 2019 Metairie offer was retaliatory	Allen: recruiter/postmaster told her the offer was rescinded because of her EEO activity; those statements are direct evidence of retaliation.	USPS: rescission based on her prior separations/unsatisfactory performance.	Reversed — Allen’s affidavit contains direct evidence that a reasonable jury could find retaliation; McDonnell Douglas burden‑shifting not required.

Babb v. Wilkie, 140 S. Ct. 1168 (2020) (federal‑employee ADEA claims under § 633a(a) do not require but‑for causation)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (framework for circumstantial discrimination claims)
Gomez‑Perez v. Potter, 553 U.S. 474 (2008) (ADEA federal‑employee provision prohibits retaliation for complaining of age discrimination)
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., 530 U.S. 133 (2000) (plaintiff may show pretext and carry burden with evidence that employer’s explanation is false)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard; genuine dispute if reasonable jury could return a verdict for nonmovant)
Reed v. Neopost USA, Inc., 701 F.3d 434 (5th Cir. 2012) (two‑part test for stray remarks and when they constitute circumstantial evidence)
Goudeau v. Nat’l Oilwell Varco, L.P., 793 F.3d 470 (5th Cir. 2015) (comments as part of the overall evidentiary mix can support discrimination inference)
McMichael v. Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc., 934 F.3d 447 (5th Cir. 2019) (remarks showing desire to replace older employees can support age‑discrimination inference)
Russell v. McKinney Hosp. Venture, 235 F.3d 219 (5th Cir. 2000) (same‑actor inference and influence of supervisors over employment decisions)
Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268 (2001) (temporal proximity must be very close to support causation for retaliation at prima facie stage)