Darrell Alsobrook v. Fannin County, Georgia
698 F. App'x 1010
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Darrell Alsobrook (52) and Michael Kirkland (47) were terminated from Fannin County Road Department after County chairman Simonds directed cost-cutting and Collins (Superintendent) produced a list of 11 employees to fire.
- Collins selected names based on four factors: seasonal work, soil/erosion certification, multiple departmental duties, and volunteering for after-hours emergency duty.
- Plaintiffs sued under the ADEA alleging age discrimination; the County moved for summary judgment, which the district court granted.
- The County defended the firings as a reduction in force (RIF) prompted by budget concerns; Collins identified lack of versatility and absence from emergency lists as reasons for naming plaintiffs.
- Plaintiffs argued pretext via (a) alleged unnecessary RIF given county finances, (b) factual errors about plaintiffs’ duties/volunteer status, (c) remarks about older employees and retirement/vesting, (d) deviations from RIF policy and post-RIF hires.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, finding the County articulated legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons and plaintiffs failed to show those reasons were a pretext for age-based discrimination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs established a prima facie case of age discrimination in a RIF | Plaintiffs were within protected age group, adversely affected, and qualified | County did not target them because of age but because of RIF criteria | Court assumed prima facie but addressed pretext; no reversal on prima facie grounds |
| Whether County articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for termination | Plaintiffs: County's stated budget/RIF reasons are pretextual | County: Budgetary concerns and Collins’ criteria (versatility, certification, emergency-duty volunteering) are legitimate reasons | County met its burden to produce legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons |
| Whether plaintiffs produced evidence that County’s reasons were pretextual | Plaintiffs: factual errors, post-RIF hires, failure to follow RIF policy, and comments about age/retirement show pretext | County: plaintiffs’ evidence shows at best mistakes or isolated comments, not that decisionmakers lacked honest belief in their reasons | Plaintiffs failed to show decisionmakers did not honestly believe their stated reasons; no genuine issue of material fact on pretext |
| Admissibility/relevance of comments and statistics as evidence of age bias | Plaintiffs: comments about retiring/older workers and average-age stats show discriminatory intent | County: comments concerned retirement-age employees (older than plaintiffs) and statistical averages lacked foundation | Court held comments related to retirement-age employees not probative of discrimination against plaintiffs (younger); statistical evidence properly excluded or insufficiently reliable |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Carroll, 529 F.3d 961 (11th Cir. 2008) (summary judgment facts viewed in plaintiff’s favor)
- Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604 (1993) (age and pension status are distinct; employer may act on years-of-service without violating ADEA)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden-shifting framework for disparate-treatment claims)
- Texas Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (1981) (employer’s burden to articulate legitimate nondiscriminatory reason)
- Chapman v. AI Transp., 229 F.3d 1012 (11th Cir. 2000) (applying McDonnell Douglas framework at summary judgment)
- Smith v. J. Smith Lanier & Co., 352 F.3d 1342 (11th Cir. 2003) (prima facie elements for RIF age-discrimination claims)
- Woodard v. Fanboy, L.L.C., 298 F.3d 1261 (11th Cir. 2002) (plaintiff must show decisionmaker did not honestly believe the reasons given)
- Smith v. Lockheed-Martin Corp., 644 F.3d 1321 (11th Cir. 2011) (convincing-mosaic approach as alternative to McDonnell Douglas)
- Silverman v. Bd. of Educ., 937 F.3d 729 (7th Cir. 2011) (examples of circumstantial-evidence mosaics that can permit inference of intent)
- Watkins v. Sverdrup Tech., Inc., 153 F.3d 1308 (11th Cir. 1998) (statistical calculations must be presented by a witness, not counsel)
- Wilson v. B/E Aerospace, Inc., 376 F.3d 1079 (11th Cir. 2004) (statistical evidence must have analytical foundation to show discrimination)