986 F.3d 711
7th Cir.2021Background
- Dr. Anne Marnocha, a board-certified neonatologist (licensed 1981), worked at St. Vincent’s Carmel NICU from 2003 and was terminated on January 5, 2018 as part of a St. Vincent restructuring.
- Peyton Manning Children’s Hospital executive Dr. Hossain Marandi concluded Carmel was overstaffed and decided to eliminate the five Carmel neonatologist positions and have 86th Street neonatologists cover Carmel instead.
- All five Carmel neonatologists (ages ranged; Marnocha was 62) were discharged but were invited to apply for one remaining opening at the larger 86th Street NICU.
- A six-person interview panel unanimously recommended hiring Dr. Melissa Landis (age 35) over Marnocha based on interview performance, transition plan, energy, and interpersonal impressions; Rothenberg had written a note that Marnocha was “at end of career.”
- Marnocha sued under the ADEA for age-based termination and failure to hire; the district court granted summary judgment for St. Vincent, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Termination: whether Marnocha was unlawfully terminated because of age | Marnocha argued similarly situated younger comparators (86th Street neonatologists) were treated more favorably and age motivated the firings | St. Vincent argued Carmel and 86th Street neonatologists are not similarly situated (different NICU levels/acuity) and all five Carmel doctors were treated identically | Held: Affirmed for defendant – Carmel and 86th Street staff not comparable; similarly situated requirement not met, so prima facie case fails |
| 2) Failure to hire: whether St. Vincent’s stated reason for hiring Landis was pretext for age discrimination | Marnocha argued Rothenberg’s “end of career” note and alleged panel taint show age bias and pretext | St. Vincent argued legitimate, non-age reasons (Landis’s interview, plan, energy, recent Level IV training) supported hiring decision and panel was not shown to be tainted | Held: Affirmed for defendant – panel’s non-age reasons were credible and not shown to be unworthy of credence; no but-for causation established |
| 3) Applicability of RIF standard (Collier) and whether it relaxes comparator requirement | Marnocha maintained Collier’s RIF guidance requires only showing younger employees were treated more favorably | St. Vincent argued Collier clarifies but does not displace McDonnell Douglas; similarly situated inquiry remains where comparators differ materially | Held: Collier does not erase the similarly situated requirement; RIF principles consistent with McDonnell Douglas and do not change the outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Skiba v. Ill. Cent. R.R. Co., 884 F.3d 708 (7th Cir. 2018) (summary judgment review and evidentiary approach in ADEA cases)
- Ortiz v. Werner Enterprises, Inc., 834 F.3d 760 (7th Cir. 2016) (courts must evaluate all evidence together)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (U.S. 2009) (ADEA requires but-for causation)
- McDaniel v. Progress Rail Locomotive, Inc., 940 F.3d 360 (7th Cir. 2019) (but-for causation clarified in ADEA disparate-treatment claims)
- Collier v. Budd Co., 66 F.3d 886 (7th Cir. 1995) (RIF standard: younger employees treated more favorably; consistent with McDonnell Douglas)
- Boumehdi v. Plastag Holdings, LLC, 489 F.3d 781 (7th Cir. 2007) (pretext requires showing employer’s reasons are implausible or unworthy of credence)
- Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604 (U.S. 1993) (employers must evaluate employees on merits, not age)
- Carson v. Lake County, Indiana, 865 F.3d 526 (7th Cir. 2017) (elements of disparate-treatment ADEA claim)
- Tyburski v. City of Chicago, 964 F.3d 590 (7th Cir. 2020) (moving party may prevail by showing absence of evidence for nonmovant)