Bryant v. Gestamp West Virginia, LLC, 2:22-cv-00262

Robert Bryant (age 58) was a Controls Engineer at Gestamp West Virginia; he was included in a May 2020 RIF after COVID-related production cuts.
Press Engineering had five salaried engineers; management decided to retain one Hot-Stamp controls engineer, one Cold-Stamp controls engineer, and the sole Process/Press Engineer.
Supervisor Elio Gonzalez used a decision matrix and consulted colleagues; he recommended retaining Jamie Love (age 45) for Cold Stamp because of Allen-Bradley expertise and troubleshooting, and retaining Sebastian Manzo in Hot Stamp.
Defendant offered Bryant an hourly maintenance position, which he rejected; Bryant then sued under the West Virginia Human Rights Act for age discrimination.
Disputed evidence supporting pretext: rapid changes in unofficial 2020 PDP scores (Bryant’s down, Love’s up), alleged inaccuracies in ADEA layoff disclosures, and evidence that a younger hire (Roberto Rios) later worked in the department.
Court denied defendant’s summary-judgment motion (and denied Bryant’s motion to file a surreply), finding genuine factual disputes on pretext and that a jury could find age was a motivating factor.

Issue	Bryant's Argument	Gestamp's Argument	Held
Whether Bryant made a prima facie age-discrimination case	Retained comparator (Love, 45) was "substantially younger" (13-year gap); de minimis showing suffices	Mere age difference is insufficient; plaintiff must show qualifications were plainly superior	Court: prima facie shown under Knotts/O'Connor substantially-younger standard (10+ years generally sufficient)
Whether defendant offered a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason	N/A (burden shifts after prima facie)	Retention decision based on operational needs, equipment expertise, troubleshooting — non-discriminatory RIF rationale	Court: Gestamp met its burden; proffered legitimate reason accepted for summary-judgment framework
Whether Bryant rebutted pretext / mixed motives	Points to abrupt PDP score changes, questionable ADEA disclosures, and post-RIF hiring of a younger engineer as circumstantial evidence of pretext	Argues PDP changes used different criteria, disclosures properly reflected who was "affected," and omissions/hiring do not prove age bias	Court: genuine disputes of material fact exist on pretext and replacement; summary judgment denied so jury can resolve credibility
Motion for leave to file a surreply	Sought to file surreply to respond to reply arguments	Opposed	Court: denied motion for leave to file a surreply

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (establishes burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
Knotts v. Grafton City Hospital, 237 W. Va. 169 (W. Va. 2016) (adopts "substantially younger" comparator standard under WVHRA)
O'Connor v. Consolidated Coin Caterers Corp., 517 U.S. 308 (U.S. 1996) (formulation of "substantially younger" standard)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (summary-judgment standard on genuine issues of material fact)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (movant's burden on summary judgment)
Barefoot v. Sundale Nursing Home, 193 W. Va. 475 (W. Va. 1995) (prima facie showing is a threshold, de minimis inquiry)
Mayflower Vehicle Systems, Inc. v. Cheeks, 218 W. Va. 703 (W. Va. 2006) (discusses mixed-motive analysis under WV law)