Carmella Bucci v. Hurd Buick Pontiac GMC Truck, LLC
121 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1818
| R.I. | 2014Background
- Bucci, age 72, was terminated by Hurd Buick after multiple prior stints at ages 67 and 68.
- Bucci’s third period as titles and registrations clerk included interactions with customers and handling vehicle registrations.
- Defendant discharged Bucci citing poor work performance, unhelpful attitude, and a push for department productivity; forgery incident occurred shortly before termination.
- Bucci forged signatures on a Connecticut DMV document prior to cataract surgery in 2006, receiving a written warning.
- Management emphasized a desire to reorganize the titles and registrations team to raise productivity after the 2005-2006 hires of a CFO and HR leadership.
- Bucci filed FEPA claims alleging age and disability discrimination; the trial court granted summary judgment for Hurd, which Bucci appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bucci proved a prima facie age-discrimination claim. | Bucci met four elements; prima facie established. | Assumed, not decided; need not decide prima facie. | Assumed for purposes of decision; still affirm. |
| Whether Hurd had a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for Bucci’s termination. | Defendant’s reasons were pretextual; inconsistent facts show Mendacity. | Reasons (forgery, poor performance, productivity push) were legitimate. | Hurd’s reasons were legitimate and sufficient. |
| Whether Bucci demonstrated pretext and age discrimination; i.e., whether evidence shows discrimination as real reason. | Evidence of mendacity and inconsistent termination rationale show pretext. | No convincing mendacity; consistent performance issues justify discharge. | No triable issue of material fact; dismissal affirmed. |
| Whether disability discrimination claim was properly before the court or waived. | Disability claim merits consideration; evidence of disability status alleged. | Claim waived; insufficient development. | Waived; not reviewed on the merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- McGarry v. Pielech, 47 A.3d 271 (R.I. 2012) (three-step McDonnell-Douglas framework applied to FEPA cases)
- Neri v. Ross-Simons, Inc., 897 A.2d 42 (R.I. 2006) (adopts federal framework; burden-shifting necessary)
- Barros v. Center for Behavioral Health, Rhode Island, Inc., 710 A.2d 680 (R.I. 1998) (establishes four-part prima facie test and mendacity considerations)
- Casey v. Town of Portsmouth, 861 A.2d 1032 (R.I. 2004) (discusses evidentiary standards and pretext in FEPA cases)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (U.S. 2000) (ultimate question of discrimination; shifting burdens; credibility issues)
- Center for Behavioral Health, Rhode Island, Inc. v. Barros, 710 A.2d 680 (R.I. 1998) (establishes basic burden shifting and prima facie structure)
- Burdine v. Texas Dept. of Community Affairs, 450 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1981) (establishes presumption of discrimination after prima facie case)