Barbara Kragor v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals America, Inc.
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 26046
| 11th Cir. | 2012Background
- Kragor, age 49, began working for Takeda in 1999 and faced a government-regulated conduct policy.
- In 2008 Takeda investigated whether Kragor provided Dr. Bruce Bode with discounted airline tickets and improperly approved party reimbursements.
- Dan Orlando, a Takeda vice-president, terminated Kragor after the internal review concluded she violated or appeared to violate conduct policies.
- Kragor argued the termination was a pretext for age discrimination under the ADEA; the district court granted summary judgment for Takeda.
- The Eleventh Circuit reviewed de novo, reversed summary judgment, and remanded for trial, holding that Orlando’s later statements could raise a jury question on pretext.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there is a genuine pretext to support discrimination | Kragor shows pretext via Orlando's statements and conflicting narratives. | Takeda's reason was legitimate and not pretextual; no genuine issue for trial. | There is a jury question on pretext when combined with the prima facie case. |
| Whether the final decisionmaker's statements create a jury issue on discrimination | Orlando’s remarks indicate the reason was a pretext and reflect discriminatory intent. | Orlando’s statements are personal beliefs and do not negate a legitimate reason. | A jury could infer discrimination from Orlando’s statements alongside the prima facie case. |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate under McDonnell Douglas framework | Pretext evidence defeats the employer’s burden of production. | Once a legitimate reason is shown, burden shifts; plaintiff must show pretext with evidence. | Reversed; summary judgment improper; case should go to trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000) (pretext evidence may permit a jury to find discrimination)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (framework for proving pretext after prima facie case)
- Chapman v. AI Transport, 229 F.3d 1012 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc; applies McDonnell Douglas to ADEA claims)
- Burdine v. Texas Dept. of Cmty. Affairs, 450 U.S. 248 (1981) (burden-shifting framework in discrimination cases)
- Combs v. Plantation Patterns, 106 F.3d 1519 (11th Cir. 1997) (pretext framework and evidence sufficiency)
- St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993) (disbelief of reasons may suffice with prima facie case)
- Johnson v. Weld Cnty., 594 F.3d 1202 (10th Cir. 2010) (pretext may be shown by contradictory evidence from decisionmaker)