Deyo v. Security First Bank, 5:23-cv-05012

Judy Deyo, a 67-year-old woman, was employed by Security First Bank (the Bank) as the managing agent of its Rapid City insurance office and was later demoted and replaced by a 62-year-old man, Brad Blumenthal.
Deyo had previously received positive performance evaluations, but multiple complaints about her management style led to several resignations among her staff from 2017 to 2022.
Deyo’s demotion included loss of supervisory duties, a change from salary to hourly pay, and required her to report to her replacement.
Deyo claimed that her demotion and replacement were due to age and sex discrimination, and that her work environment became hostile, leading to her constructive discharge.
After investigating her complaints and offering to address concerns, the Bank found no hostile work environment and Deyo resigned without returning to work.
The Bank filed for summary judgment on all claims; the court granted the motion after finding insufficient evidence of discrimination or retaliation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Age Discrimination	Replaced by a younger male; no sufficient reason for demotion	Replacement was only 5 years younger; insufficient as a matter of law	Not substantially younger; no prima facie case
Sex Discrimination	Hired male as replacement; prior comment re: males	No evidence decisionmakers were motivated by sex; no disparate treatment	No evidence statements by a decisionmaker; no inference of discrimination
Hostile Work Environment	Demotion and treatment post-demotion were humiliating	No severe or pervasive harassment based on age or sex; only minor comments	No evidence of pervasive, severe harassment
Retaliation	Demotion/replacement was retaliatory after protected activity	Plaintiff’s actions were not protected activity, or came after demotion	No evidence of protected conduct or causation
Constructive Discharge	Demotion and office behavior made work intolerable	Conditions not objectively intolerable; employer acted reasonably	No intolerable conditions or intent to force resignation

Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (ADEA requires age to be the "but-for" cause in discrimination)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (establishes burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
O’Connor v. Consolidated Coin Caterers Corp., 517 U.S. 308 (replacement by someone insignificantly younger is weak evidence for ADEA claims)
Gibson v. Am. Greetings Corp., 670 F.3d 844 (five-year age difference insufficient for ADEA prima facie case)
Lewis v. St. Cloud State Univ., 467 F.3d 1133 (clarifies age difference required for ADEA claims to proceed)
Shaffer v. Potter, 499 F.3d 900 (statements from non-decisionmakers not sufficient for Title VII claims)
Tatom v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 228 F.3d 926 (objective standard for constructive discharge)