Crisco v. Lockheed Martin Corporation
4:10-cv-00418
N.D. Tex.Mar 29, 2011Background
- Plaintiff Barry Crisco, a former Crater-Packer A, sues Lockheed Martin under the ADEA for not rehiring in November 2009.
- Crisco previously worked in Lockheed's shipping department from 1981 to 1999, terminated in a 1999 RIF, then held various jobs through ~2008 with little woodworking exposure.
- In November 2009 Towles and Gillilan hired Lee and McCormick for two Crater-Packer A openings; Lee and McCormick had stronger woodworking experience and related qualifications.
- Crisco was notified of the non-selection around November 10, 2009; he filed EEOC and FWCRD charges on November 24, 2009.
- FWCRD found no reasonable cause; EEOC adopted that finding, leading to this federal suit; defendant moves for summary judgment claiming no pretext evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prima facie case viability | Crisco contends age was the factor in not hiring. | Lee and McCormick were more qualified; age not shown as the decisive factor. | Court doubts prima facie but assumes it for analysis. |
| Pretext for age discrimination | Crisco argues defendant's reasons are pretextual given his longer tenure and qualifications. | Towles and Gillilan believed Lee and McCormick more qualified; reasons are legitimate and nondiscriminatory. | No competent evidence shows pretext; summary judgment for defendant. |
| Evidence sufficiency under McDonnell Douglas framework | Crisco must show pretext with evidence of superior qualifications. | Record shows Lee and McCormick had stronger qualifications; plaintiff's declarations are incompetent for summary judgment. | Record fails to create a genuine dispute; defendant prevails. |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (establishes burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- O'Connor v. Consolo Cont. Caterers Corp., 517 U.S. 308 (1996) (prima facie elements of age discrimination)
- Moss v. BMC Software, Inc., 610 F.3d 917 (5th Cir. 2010) (pretext analysis and qualification comparisons in ADEA context)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (burden on movant to show absence of evidence for essential elements)
- Jackson v. Cal-Western Packaging Corp., 602 F.3d 374 (5th Cir. 2010) (adopts McDonnell Douglas framework for ADEA claims)
- Jefferies v. Harris County Cmty. Action Ass'n, 693 F.2d 589 (5th Cir. 1982) (illustrates legitimate-nondiscriminatory reasons standard)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (summary judgment standard—evidence must show genuine dispute)
- Nissho-Iwai Am. Corp. v. Kline, 845 F.2d 1300 (5th Cir. 1988) (hearsay and affidavit defects can defeat summary judgment evidence)