Dunn v. Trustees of Boston University, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 14556

Background

Michael Dunn (age 47) was an Assistant Director/manager in BU’s IS&T desktop support; BU reorganized and consolidated field and central desktop support in 2010.
The reorganization eliminated Dunn’s position and created a single "manager of desktop services" post given to Jill Beckman (≈30s); Dunn’s duties were largely reassigned to her.
Gianoulis and Schroeder ran the reorganization to improve efficiency and integrate ticketing systems (OneHelp); the new job description was not posted and no external candidates were considered.
Dunn filed age-discrimination claims under the ADEA and Massachusetts Gen. Laws ch. 151B; he voluntarily dismissed the ADEA claim and proceeded on the state-law claim in federal court.
The district court granted summary judgment for BU, holding Dunn failed to make a prima facie case; the First Circuit affirmed on the alternative ground that Dunn offered no admissible evidence showing BU’s stated business reasons were pretextual.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether reassignment of Dunn’s duties to a younger employee alone establishes a prima facie RIF claim under ch. 151B	Reassignment/continuing need (Beckman assumed Dunn’s functions) proves discriminatory retention of younger worker	Mere consolidation/reallocation of duties in a RIF does not raise an inference of age discrimination	Reassignment alone insufficient; Lewis and Sullivan require more than automatic inference
Whether other circumstances created an inference of discrimination (failure to post job; no external candidates)	Failure to follow BU posting/hiring procedures shows pretext and discriminatory motive	Procedural deviation was limited (only job not posted) and HR raised no concerns; deviation has no logical link to age bias	Procedural deviation alone did not create a genuine issue of pretext
Whether Beckman was manifestly less qualified so as to show pretext	Dunn argued Beckman lacked required qualifications compared to his experience	BU showed Beckman had managerial experience, service-management/ticketing expertise, and had been doing much of the role already	Disparity in qualifications, without more than plaintiff’s belief, fails to create triable issue of pretext
Whether age-related remarks/supporting evidence (e.g., "looking for a younger person") show discriminatory animus	Gianoulis told Dunn he was "really looking for a younger person" for a different role; suggests age bias influenced reorg decisions	Remarks were about a different, lower-graded position; comments are ambiguous and not temporally/causally tied to Dunn’s layoff; other older employees were promoted/retained	The remark was not sufficiently related in time, context, or causation to show pretext; overall record inconsistent with age-based motive

Key Cases Cited

Ponte v. Steelcase, Inc., 741 F.3d 310 (1st Cir.) (summary judgment evidence drawn in nonmovant's favor)
Sullivan v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 825 N.E.2d 522 (Mass.) (prima facie RIF framework and need to show circumstances raising inference of discrimination)
Lewis v. City of Boston, 321 F.3d 207 (1st Cir.) (reallocation/consolidation of duties does not by itself prove discriminatory RIF)
Woodward v. Emulex Corp., 714 F.3d 632 (1st Cir.) (RIF prima facie and pretext analysis)
Currier v. United Techs. Corp., 393 F.3d 246 (1st Cir.) (replacement/retention of younger worker may be probative but not dispositive)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S.) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
Vega-Colon v. Wyeth Pharms., 625 F.3d 22 (1st Cir.) (plaintiff’s subjective belief of superior qualifications insufficient to prove pretext)
Somers v. Converged Access, Inc., 911 N.E.2d 739 (Mass.) (qualifications comparison insufficient to prove discriminatory motive)
Thomas v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 144 F.3d 31 (1st Cir.) (ambiguous managerial remarks about inability to change not proof of age animus)