Anthony Mazzeo v. Color Resolutions Int'l, LLC
746 F.3d 1264
| 11th Cir. | 2014Background
- Anthony Mazzeo (age 46) worked for Color Resolutions International (CRI) as a technical/sales representative in Florida/southern Georgia; CRI terminated him March 10, 2009, two days before scheduled back surgery for a herniated disc.
- CRI cited declining sales in Mazzeo’s territory as the reason; ten days later CRI hired a 23‑year‑old, Jeremy Kyzer, who soon assumed responsibilities for Mazzeo’s former territory combined with a retiring employee’s territory.
- Mazzeo sued under the ADA (as amended by the ADAAA), the ADEA, and the Florida Civil Rights Act alleging disability and age discrimination; the district court granted summary judgment for CRI.
- At summary judgment, Mazzeo submitted an affidavit from his treating physician describing chronic herniated disc with radicular pain that substantially limited walking, bending, sleeping, and lifting >10 pounds.
- The district court rejected the ADA claim as failing to show a disability or that CRI regarded him as disabled, and applied a reduction‑in‑force (RIF) prima facie standard to deny the ADEA claim.
- The Eleventh Circuit applied the post‑ADAAA standards, reversed on the ADA/FCRA disability issues, and held the district court erred by applying the RIF prima facie test to the ADEA claim; it vacated and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mazzeo had a disability under the ADA (post‑ADAAA) | Dr. Roberts’ affidavit shows chronic herniated disc substantially limited major life activities (walking, bending, sleeping, lifting) | Affidavit is conclusory; deposition suggests limited effects; impairment/transitory | Court: ADAAA and EEOC regs broadened coverage; physician affidavit sufficient to create prima facie disability claim; vacated summary judgment |
| Whether CRI regarded Mazzeo as disabled | Mazzeo could pursue a “regarded as” theory (scheduling and termination around surgery) | District court treated impairment as transitory/minor and rejected theory sua sponte | Court: declined to decide now but allowed Mazzeo to pursue regarded‑as claim on remand because district court raised transitory argument without notice |
| Whether Mazzeo established ADEA prima facie — replacement or RIF standard | Mazzeo: younger hire (Kyzer) assumed his duties; consolidated territory indicates replacement | CRI: position eliminated; Kyzer hired only to replace retiring employee (Lumpkin); RIF standard applies | Court: disputed facts suggest replacement; RIF prima facie test was improperly applied at summary judgment; remand to use standard ADEA prima facie test |
| Whether summary judgment standard was properly applied | Mazzeo: view facts and inferences in his favor to show triable issues | CRI: no genuine issue of material fact on disability and age claims | Court: viewed evidence in plaintiff’s favor, found genuine issues precluding summary judgment; vacated and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (Sup. Ct. 1999) (pre‑ADAAA interpretive precedent on disability and mitigating measures)
- Toyota Motor Mfg., Ky., Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184 (Sup. Ct. 2002) (pre‑ADAAA construal of “substantially limits” narrowed ADA coverage)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (Sup. Ct. 1973) (burden‑shifting framework for circumstantial discrimination claims)
- Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (Sup. Ct. 2009) (ADEA requires age as the but‑for cause)
- Rollins v. TechSouth, Inc., 833 F.2d 1525 (11th Cir. 1987) (evidence to show replacement defeats summary judgment in age cases)
- Hilburn v. Murata Elecs. N. Am., Inc., 181 F.3d 1220 (11th Cir. 1999) (pre‑ADAAA case finding conclusory medical opinion insufficient)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (Sup. Ct. 1986) (summary judgment standard)