Clive Baron v. Abbott Laboratories
672 F. App'x 158
| 3rd Cir. | 2016Background
- Clive Baron worked at STARLIMS (an Abbott division) from 2007–2013, rising to General Manager of STARLIMS/Global Commercial Operations; he was 60 when terminated in Dec. 2013 after a corporate restructuring.
- Abbott eliminated Baron’s General Manager position as part of a reorganization it said aimed to remove a management layer and address underperformance in AIS. Scott Goss, a similarly situated younger manager, had been eliminated earlier that year. Goss was ~19 years younger than Baron and was terminated in the same reorganization cycle.
- After Baron’s termination, Abbott promoted two country-level managers (Simon Wood, 6 years younger; Tamir Gottfried, 21 years younger) to region general-manager roles; they were not held to be similarly situated because they managed single regions while Baron oversaw global operations.
- Abbott later hired Richard Lanchantin (age 59) into a role that later mirrored Baron’s prior position. Baron filed EEOC/PHRC/FCHR charges and sued under the ADEA, PHRA, and Florida Civil Rights Act alleging age discrimination.
- The district court granted Abbott’s summary judgment motion, concluding Baron failed to make a prima facie ADEA/PHRA/FCRA case; the Third Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Baron established a prima facie ADEA/PHRA/FCRA claim (age ≥40, fired, qualified, replaced by sufficiently younger person or retained younger similarly situated employees) | Baron: Abbott retained younger employees (Wood, Gottfried) and later filled his role with a younger hire (Lanchantin), creating an inference of age discrimination | Abbott: Wood and Gottfried were not similarly situated (regional vs. global role); Lanchantin was only one year younger, not substantially younger; a true RIF occurred that eliminated comparable positions (e.g., Goss) | Held: Baron failed prima facie showing. Retained employees were not similarly situated and replacement was not substantially younger; summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (framework for burden-shifting in discrimination cases)
- Tomasso v. Boeing Co., 445 F.3d 702 (3d Cir. 2006) (applying McDonnell Douglas to ADEA/PHRA claims)
- Fakete v. Aetna, Inc., 308 F.3d 335 (3d Cir. 2002) (definition of prima facie elements for age-discrimination claims)
- Mazzeo v. Color Resolutions Int’l, LLC, 746 F.3d 1264 (11th Cir. 2014) (applying McDonnell Douglas framework to state ADEA-analogues)
- O’Connor v. Consol. Coin Caterers Corp., 517 U.S. 308 (1996) (age difference must be sufficient to raise an inference of discrimination)
- Fuentes v. Perskie, 32 F.3d 759 (3d Cir. 1994) (explaining employer’s relatively light production burden and plaintiff’s rebuttal at summary judgment)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard and viewing facts for the nonmoving party)
- Showalter v. Univ. of Pittsburgh Med. Ctr., 190 F.3d 231 (3d Cir. 1999) (reduction-in-force analysis: retaining similarly situated younger employees can support inference of discrimination)