Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. DynMcDermott Petroleum Operations Co.
537 F. App'x 437
5th Cir.2013Background
- Phillip Swafford, age 56, previously worked for DynMcDermott (DM) as a planner/scheduler (1998–2003) and applied in 2008 for a planner/scheduler opening at DM’s Big Hill site; site supervisor Ray Wood and lead scheduler June DuBois supported hiring him.
- Site director Tim Lewis opposed hiring Swafford, repeatedly citing Swafford’s age and that his wife had cancer; Lewis sent multiple emails and threatened corrective action against Wood for insubordination when Wood pushed to hire Swafford.
- DM ultimately hired Mark Thomas (mid-30s). Thomas’ resume overstated formal education; Swafford had unique, relevant SAP experience DM used and strong prior performance and attendance.
- EEOC sued DM under the ADEA and ADA (association with a disabled person), alleging failure to hire due to age and disability association; district court granted DM summary judgment.
- Fifth Circuit reviewed de novo, found genuine issues of material fact about (1) Lewis’s influence over Wood (cat’s paw theory), (2) whether proffered reasons for hiring Thomas were pretextual, and (3) whether age/disabled-spouse animus was a but-for/motivating factor. The court reversed summary judgment for DM and reinstated claims, including liquidated/punitive damages issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence constituted direct or circumstantial proof of age/association discrimination | Lewis’s age- and illness-related comments and emails (by a supervisor) are direct/circumstantial evidence and imputable to decisionmaker | Remarks were stray, required inferences, and Lewis lacked hiring authority so comments irrelevant | Court: Remarks could be imputed (cat’s paw) or at least create circumstantial evidence; not stray so summary judgment improper |
| Whether EEOC established prima facie ADEA case | Swafford was qualified, in protected class, not hired, and younger applicant hired | DM did not dispute prima facie; focused on legitimate reason for hire | Court: Prima facie established (56 vs. mid-30s hire) |
| Whether DM’s stated reason (Thomas more qualified) was pretextual | Qualifications evidence (SAP experience, false education claim, interview scoring, timing of decision) undermines credibility of DM’s justification | Employer relied on evaluation scores and applicant representations (right to rely on resumes) | Court: Material disputes about qualifications and evaluation process permit inference of pretext; summary judgment improper |
| Whether plaintiff may recover liquidated/punitive damages | Evidence of knowing or reckless disregard (Lewis and others acknowledged illegality; prolonged remarks; HR/management inaction) supports willfulness/malice | District court concluded no intentional discrimination proved, so damages unavailable | Court: Because discrimination claims survive summary judgment, issues of willfulness/malice also survive and summary judgment on damages reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Gross v. FBL Financial Services, 557 U.S. 167 (ADEA requires but-for causation)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (framework for circumstantial discrimination claims)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., 530 U.S. 133 (plaintiff may show pretext and rely on prima facie evidence at trial)
- Laxton v. Gap Inc., 333 F.3d 572 (cat’s paw liability; subordinate’s bias can be imputed)
- Palasota v. Haggar Clothing Co., 342 F.3d 569 (requirements for direct evidence)
- Moss v. BMC Software, Inc., 610 F.3d 917 (McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting explained)
- Jackson v. Cal-Western Packaging Corp., 602 F.3d 374 (ADEA prima facie elements)
- Celestine v. Petroleos de Venezuela SA, 266 F.3d 343 (standard for "clearly better qualified" proof of pretext)
- Sandstad v. CB Richard Ellis, Inc., 309 F.3d 893 (employer’s honest belief in reasons bears on pretext)
- Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604 (willfulness standard under ADEA)