Cocuzzo v. Trader Joe's East Inc., 121 F.4th 924

Gloria Cocuzzo, a long-term and highly regarded employee of Trader Joe's in Brookline, MA, was terminated after purchasing beer for her underage grandson (also a store employee), violating store alcohol policy.
The termination followed an internal report of the incident, Cocuzzo's admission to the purchase, and discussions between the store Captain (Gillum) and upper management.
After her termination, Cocuzzo filed suit claiming age discrimination under the ADEA and the Massachusetts Fair Employment Practices Act (Chapter 151B), asserting her firing was due to her age rather than the policy violation.
The district court granted summary judgment for Trader Joe's and Gillum, finding insufficient evidence of age discrimination or pretext in the termination decision.
Cocuzzo appealed, challenging the lower court’s application of the burden-shifting framework and the dismissal of her individual claims against Gillum.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Cocuzzo's termination due to age discrimination?	She was fired for her age, not the alcohol policy violation.	Termination was for violation of alcohol policy, not age.	No evidence of age-based animus; summary judgment upheld.
Was the alcohol policy/law actually violated?	She did not violate store policy or state law; thus, firing was pretext.	She violated both; actual violation is not dispositive—belief suffices.	Whether violation occurred is immaterial; belief is key.
Comparable treatment of younger employees?	Younger workers got warnings, not termination, for similar conduct.	Situations not materially similar—other workers didn't knowingly purchase for minors.	No similarly situated comparators; no disparate treatment.
Shifting explanations and use of "retire" language?	Trader Joe’s gave changing reasons and encouraged her retirement due to age.	Core reason (alcohol purchase for minor) always consistent; "retirement" offer meant as courtesy.	No shifting pretext or evidence of animus; context supports employer.
Individual liability for Gillum under Ch. 151B?	Gillum intentionally interfered with her rights based on age.	No intent to discriminate; claim is derivative and fails with main claim.	No showing of intent or discrimination; summary judgment affirmed.

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (establishes the three-stage burden-shifting framework for employment discrimination claims)
Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (2009) (ADEA requires "but-for" causation for age discrimination)
Vélez v. Thermo King de P.R., Inc., 585 F.3d 441 (1st Cir. 2009) (outlines requirements for disparate treatment and summary judgment standards)
Bennett v. Saint-Gobain Corp., 507 F.3d 23 (1st Cir. 2007) (employer's honest belief in its reason is what matters for pretext analysis)
Conward v. Cambridge Sch. Comm., 171 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 1999) (comparator evidence must be materially similar to support disparate treatment claims)
Gonzalez v. El Dia, Inc., 304 F.3d 63 (1st Cir. 2002) (mere mention of retirement to an employee does not show age animus)