Del Valle-Santana v. Servicios Legales De Puerto Rico, Inc., 804 F.3d 127

Del Valle-Santana, age 63, worked ~28 years at Servicios Legales de Puerto Rico (SLPR) and was Director of the Appeals Unit until SLPR eliminated the unit and terminated her on Jan. 12, 2012 after federal funding cuts.
SLPR eliminated ten positions across the organization due to a 15% budget shortfall from reduced Legal Services Corporation appropriations; the eliminated Appeals Unit had no replacement.
Plaintiff filed an ADEA claim alleging age-based termination after exhausting administrative remedies; district court granted summary judgment for defendants.
The district court assumed a prima facie case but found defendants’ stated reason (budget-driven elimination) legitimate and plaintiff failed to show pretext; the First Circuit affirmed.
The First Circuit affirmed on an independent ground: plaintiff failed to establish the fourth McDonnell Douglas prima facie element because she offered no evidence that retained comparators were meaningfully younger or that age was treated non-neutrally.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Del Valle-Santana make a prima facie ADEA case (esp. element 4)?	She asserted younger, less-experienced directors were retained (lists six names) so age was a factor.	Appeals Unit was eliminated; no one replaced her and retained directors were not shown to be significantly younger.	No — plaintiff failed to show retained comparators were substantially younger or that decision treated age non-neutrally; prima facie element 4 not met.
Was the employer’s proffered reason pretextual?	Argued that transfer labeled “lateral” and retained directors suggest pretext.	Budget cuts and unit elimination were legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons.	Court did not reach pretext after finding prima facie failure; previous district court found no pretext.
Does O'Connor bar inferences from insignificantly younger comparators?	Plaintiff contended she need not prove substantial age differences.	Defendants relied on O'Connor: must show meaningful age gap.	O'Connor applies; plaintiff must show retained employees were significantly younger — she did not.
Was there evidence of age-based animus?	Plaintiff alleged an epithet (“Medicare group”) in complaint.	Hey denied the remark; plaintiff offered no supporting evidence in record.	No admissible evidence of age-based animus in the record; allegation disregarded.

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (framework for burden-shifting in discrimination claims)
O'Connor v. Consol. Coin Caterers Corp., 517 U.S. 308 (1996) (insignificant age differences cannot support inference of age discrimination)
Williams v. Raytheon Co., 220 F.3d 16 (1st Cir. 2000) (three-year age difference too small for prima facie case)
Brennan v. GTE Gov't Sys. Corp., 150 F.3d 21 (1st Cir. 1998) (elements of ADEA prima facie case)
Vélez v. Thermo King de P.R., Inc., 585 F.3d 441 (1st Cir. 2009) (age must be but-for cause under ADEA post-Gross)
Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (2009) (plaintiff must prove age was the but-for cause of the adverse action)
Tex. Dep't of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (1981) (plaintiff's burden to make out prima facie case by preponderance)