Brett Steele v. Lloyd Austin, 20-5007

In August 2010 the Department of Defense hired Dr. Brett Steele (age 47) as a probationary professor at the National Defense University, College of International Security Affairs.
In 2011 the College eliminated three full-time positions due to mandated budget cuts; administrators recommended terminating three probationary professors, including Steele.
Steele sued under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), alleging he was terminated because of his age.
The district court initially granted summary judgment to the Department; the D.C. Circuit reversed, finding genuine factual disputes (Steele v. Mattis). The case went back for a four-day bench trial.
On remand the district court found Steele failed to prove that age was the but‑for cause of his termination and entered judgment for the Department; Steele appealed and this panel affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Steele)	Defendant's Argument (Department)	Held
Whether age was the but‑for cause of termination	Age motivated decision to fire Steele	Termination resulted from mandated budget cuts and selection based on program needs	Court: Steele failed to prove but‑for causation; judgment for Department affirmed
Whether the Department's budgetary rationale was pretext	Teaching‑performance criticisms show pretext for age discrimination	Criticisms reflected academic debate and do not undermine the budgetary explanation	Court: No clear error in crediting budget rationale; criticisms not proof of pretext
Credibility of supervisors who denied making ageist comments	Attributed ageist remarks by Dean Hanlon and Asst. Dean Bolanos support discrimination claim	Supervisors credibly denied making such remarks; trial court should assess demeanor and context	Court: Defer to district court credibility findings; no clear error in crediting denials
Significance of employment actions favoring other older employees and hiring younger professors	Retention of some older staff and hires of younger faculty indicate discriminatory pattern	Retention/termination outcomes were mixed; hires’ timing and context do not establish discrimination	Court: Such evidence was considered but did not show discriminatory motive; no clear error

United States v. AT&T, Inc., 916 F.3d 1029 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (standard of review for district‑court factual findings)
Abbott v. Perez, 138 S. Ct. 2305 (2018) (deference to trial‑court factual findings)
Koszola v. FDIC, 393 F.3d 1294 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (defining "clearly erroneous" standard)
Anderson v. City of Bessemer, 470 U.S. 564 (1985) (clear‑error test for factual findings)
Aka v. Wash. Hosp. Ctr., 156 F.3d 1284 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (employment actions favoring other protected‑class members may be weighed against discrimination claims)
Steele v. Mattis, 899 F.3d 943 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (appellate reversal of summary judgment; found genuine disputes of material fact)
Steele v. Carter, 192 F. Supp. 3d 151 (D.D.C. 2016) (district court summary judgment decision)
Steele v. Esper, 419 F. Supp. 3d 96 (D.D.C. 2019) (district‑court opinion on remand explaining credibility and factual findings)