Cameron v. Idearc Media Corp.
685 F.3d 44
| 1st Cir. | 2012Background
- Appellants Cameron, Ferris, Gleason, and Rosenthal were Premise Sales representatives for Idearc terminated in July 2007 for alleged poor performance.
- MSP under Idearc’s 2002 CBA with the Union governed terminations based on six-month performance rankings and a 4-of-7 semester rule with a 7.5% per-peer-group cap.
- The MSP aimed to identify 10-15% of employees for termination annually and allowed revisions to the failing percentile in 2005 and 2007 to meet that range.
- Terminations occurred while no CBA was in effect between December 2008; a subsequent 2008 CBA was negotiated after prior CBA expired.
- Appellants alleged age discrimination under ADEA, ERISA rights interference, and retaliation for filing suit; district court granted summary judgment for Idearc on all claims.
- The court affirmed, holding the MSP-based terminations were for performance, not discrimination or retaliation, and that LMRA preemption did not require decision on those grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ADEA discrimination at issue | Cameron et al. claim age discrimination via MSP targeting | Idearc argues performance-based, neutral justification | No jury issue on pretext; policy neutral, not age-based |
| ERISA interference with prospective pension rights | Discharges aimed to reduce pension costs targeted at older employees | Terminations tied to MSP performance, not pension goals | No triable issue; evidence supports performance reason |
| Retaliation for filing suit under ERISA/ADEA | Letter Agreement and reinstate threat imply retaliation | Letter 53 was moot, negotiated, not adopted; actions were MSP-based | Retaliation claim fails; no genuine issue of material fact |
Key Cases Cited
- Bennett v. Saint-Gobain Corp., 507 F.3d 23 (1st Cir. 2007) (discriminatory intent required for ADEA claims)
- Barbour v. Dynamics Research Corp., 63 F.3d 32 (1st Cir. 1995) (requires specific intent to interfere with ERISA benefits)
- Straughn v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 250 F.3d 23 (1st Cir. 2001) (stray remarks insufficient to prove pretext)
- Lehman v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 74 F.3d 323 (1st Cir. 1996) (prima facie ERISA discrimination framework)
- Vélez v. Thermo King de Puerto Rico, Inc., 585 F.3d 441 (1st Cir. 2009) (ADEA burden-shifting framework in absence of direct evidence)
- Kouvchinov v. Parametric Tech. Corp., 537 F.3d 62 (1st Cir. 2008) (ERISA interference analyzed under McDonnell Douglas)
- Lingle v. Norge Div. of Magic Chef, Inc., 486 U.S. 399 (U.S. 1988) (LMRA preemption concerns; preemption not necessary here)