Callahan v. Fanatics, Inc., 2:22-cv-02369

Mark Callahan, aged 58 at his termination, was an account manager for Fanatics, Inc., overseeing the Dick’s Sporting Goods account and consistently meeting or exceeding sales goals, especially after Fanatics increased targets following a new partnership with Nike.
Callahan was terminated in September 2021 after a leadership meeting where Fanatics’ managers concluded his account required someone with different competencies for a “new direction” and replaced him with a younger employee.
Callahan was not provided prior written or verbal negative performance feedback, nor was he informed of any complaints about his performance from Dick’s Sporting Goods.
Upon termination, Fanatics told Callahan there were no other positions available, but he later found open roles for which he was qualified, and he did not apply for them.
Callahan alleges a pattern of abrupt firings of older account managers, and brought claims for age discrimination under the federal ADEA, state law, and aiding and abetting discrimination. Fanatics moved for summary judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Age discrimination—termination	Callahan was qualified, met/exceeded goals, replaced by younger	Termination for business change, not age	Sufficient evidence of pretext, issue for jury
Failure to transfer/rehire	Misled about job openings; applying was futile due to bias	Claim fails for not applying to open positions	Sufficient evidence Fanatics created futility; deny SJ
Sufficiency of pretext evidence	Fanatics' reasons vague, inconsistent, unsupported	Legitimate business reasons for “different direction”	Evidence of shifting/vague reasons supports pretext finding
State law age discrimination claims	Claims survive if federal claim survives	Fail if federal claim fails	State law claims also survive summary judgment

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (establishes burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard for genuine dispute of material fact)
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., 530 U.S. 133 (inconsistent employer justifications raise inference of pretext)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (moving party's burden for summary judgment)
Wexler v. White’s Fine Furniture, 317 F.3d 564 (prima facie case requirements for ADEA termination claims)