Donald Snyder v. Pierre's French Ice Cream Co., 589 F. App'x 767

In Jan 2010 Pierre’s laid off union employees per Teamsters Local 336 seniority; Snyder (then 59 at time of suit) was laid off and later became next-in-line for recall.
As seasonal demand rose in May–July 2010, Pierre’s recalled more senior union members; after one recalled employee resigned in July, Pierre’s hired temporary, part‑time workers (lower pay, no seniority/benefits) rather than recalling Snyder for business/economic reasons under the collective bargaining agreement.
Snyder alleged two ADEA claims: (1) disparate treatment for failure to recall him, and (2) hostile work environment based on repeated age‑related comments by his supervisor, John Bittinger (e.g., calling him “old man,” asking if he needed a cane or oxygen tank).
Snyder filed a grievance (arbitrator denied relief), obtained an EEOC right-to-sue letter, and sued in federal court in Oct 2011; Pierre’s moved for summary judgment on both claims.
The district court initially granted summary judgment on the hostile‑work‑environment claim, denied it on disparate treatment, then granted reconsideration and entered summary judgment for Pierre’s on both claims; Snyder appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Disparate treatment (failure to recall)	Snyder argued Pierre’s deviated from recall practice by hiring temporary younger workers instead of recalling him, evidence of age discrimination	Pierre’s argued recalls followed seniority and economic/business judgment justified hiring temporary, lower‑cost workers under the CBA; no evidence Pierre’s replaced Snyder with a younger full‑time hire or that decision‑makers acted on age bias	Aff’d: Snyder failed to raise a prima facie case — no direct evidence tying age bias to recall decision and no similarly‑situated comparator or replacement shown
Hostile work environment (age‑based harassment)	Snyder argued repeated, daily age‑related comments by supervisor created severe, pervasive, and objectively hostile environment interfering with work	Pierre’s argued comments were offensive banter within a warehouse “shop talk” culture, did not affect Snyder’s job performance (he liked his job and was never disciplined) and thus not severe or pervasive	Aff’d: Comments were not sufficiently severe or pervasive to create an objectively hostile work environment under the ADEA

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (establishes burden‑shifting framework for circumstantial discrimination claims)
Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (standard for severity/pervasiveness in hostile‑work‑environment claims)
Geiger v. Tower Automotive, 579 F.3d 614 (review standard for ADEA claims and direct/circumstantial evidence framework)
Mickey v. Zeidler Tool & Die Co., 516 F.3d 516 (requirement that plaintiff show similarly‑situated employee treated more favorably)
Campbell v. PMI Food Equipment Group, Inc., 509 F.3d 776 (work assigned to contractors/temps insufficient by itself to show replacement for prima facie case)
Williams v. General Motors Corp., 187 F.3d 553 (analysis of severity/pervasiveness under totality of circumstances)