Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abbott Laboratories, 2:10-cv-00833

EEOC sues Abbott on behalf of Ziegler alleging age discrimination under the ADEA after Abbott terminated him in Feb. 2006 at age 54.
Ziegler faced a three-year sequence of performance criticisms, TAP in 2005, and a 90-day PIP beginning Oct. 2005 amid district-wide consent decree effects.
MacGibbon (Area Director) supervised Ziegler, implemented the TAP and later the PIP, citing failure to achieve active strategies across accounts and sales goals.
Ziegler posted some notable 2005 successes (e.g., DACC and Waukesha Memorial capital/reagent sales) but overall rankings and account coverage remained problematic.
Abbott terminated Ziegler after the 90-day and 60-day/90-day PIP reviews, with HR and senior management approving the termination; Storlie (much younger) replaced him and took most of his accounts.
EEOC moves to amend the record; court grants Abbott summary judgment, concluding no but-for evidence of age discrimination and no triable issue on pretext.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Direct vs indirect proof of ADEA discrimination	Ziegler claims age was the but-for cause via mosaic evidence	Abbott argues non-discriminatory, performance-based termination	Abbott wins on both indirect and direct theories
Indirect method prima facie established?	Ziegler was top-performing for 2005 and not worst performer	Ziegler consistently ranked low across years with documented performance issues	Court finds no prima facie case due to contested performance standards and evidence
Pretext analysis under indirect method	Two-year documentation of criticisms was pretextual given success and aging of replacements	Documentation reflected genuine performance concerns and TAP/PIP failures	No showing of pretext; reasons held credible
Direct evidence mosaic under direct method	Suspicious timing, ageist remarks, and younger replacement imply discrimination	Statements about energy/swagger are not age-specific or probative; timing not dispositive	Mosaic fails to prove discriminatory intent
Weight given to competing performance evaluations	Older employee evaluated harshly while younger peers received favorable treatment	Evaluation system was uniform; multiple sources corroborate performance concerns	Court sustains summary judgment; no material triable issue on weight of evaluations

Fleishman v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 698 F.3d 598 (7th Cir. 2012) (direct/indirect proof framework for ADEA post-Gross)
Barton v. Zimmer, Inc., 662 F.3d 448 (7th Cir. 2011) (pretext framework for ADEA indirect proof)
Serwatka v. Rockwell Automation, Inc., 591 F.3d 957 (7th Cir. 2010) (pretext and prima facie considerations in ADEA cases)
Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (U.S. 2009) (requires but-for causation for ADEA discrimination)
Van Antwerp v. City of Peoria, Ill., 627 F.3d 295 (7th Cir. 2010) (direct evidence v. circumstantial evidence framework)
Dale v. Chicago Tribune Co., 797 F.2d 458 (7th Cir. 1986) (courts do not reweigh business decisions under ADEA)
Kralman v. Ill. Dep’t of Veterans’ Affairs, 23 F.3d 150 (7th Cir. 1994) (limits on court’s review of employer’s reasons)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard; burden on movant)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (genuine issue of material fact; jury question)