Ford v. Mabus
393 U.S. App. D.C. 400
| D.C. Cir. | 2010Background
- Ford, born 1940, is a Navy engineer who returned to full-time federal service in 2005 and applied in 2006 for NAVSEA branch head (and related responsibility for SEMCIP).
- The prior branch head had also served as Technical Warrant Holder; Ford believed he was also applying for that role.
- Mark Johnson, younger, was selected for the branch head and the Technical Warrant Holder positions; hiring panel included Brahosky and Mann.
- Evidence suggested age-related concerns about the workforce, including comments by Meng and data from NAVSEA's aging-workforce monitoring systems.
- Ford challenged the Navy’s reasons for selecting Johnson, including inconsistencies in Brahosky’s explanations, missing reference memo, and Mann’s testimony.
- The district court applied McDonnell Douglas, found no but-for discrimination, and dismissed Ford’s claims; court did not accept a mixed-motives frame; on appeal, court reversed in part and remanded for proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §633a allows liability when age is only a factor, not the but-for cause. | Ford argues age need only be a factor. | Mabus argues a but-for standard applies. | Yes, age can be a factor; remand for proof of factor-influence. |
| Whether Ford failed to show but-for causation under McDonnell Douglas. | Ford contends the Navy’s reasons were pretextual. | Navy asserts non-discriminatory rationale. | District court’s but-for finding affirmed; Ford did not show but-for causation. |
| Whether Gross v. FBL controls burden-shifting under §633a. | Gross requires more favorable treatment for plaintiffs; shift possible. | Gross forecloses Price Waterhouse-style shifts for ADEA private sector claims; §633a is different. | Gross does not require same burden-shifting; §633a allows factor-based liability with remand for causation on remand. |
| Whether remand is necessary to assess if age-factor governs the promotion decision. | Remand to prove age influenced the denial of promotion. | Remand unnecessary if age not a factor; consider reinstatement/backpay limits. | Remand appropriate to determine if age was a factor; reinstatement/backpay require but-for causation. |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (established burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989) (mixed-motives framework under Title VII)
- Gomez-Perez v. Potter, 553 U.S. 474 (2008) (ADEA coverage; broad ban on discrimination; federal-sector distinction)
- Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (2009) (no mixed-motives burden shifting in ADEA; but-for standard for private sector; panel distinguishes federal sector §633a)
- Holcomb v. Powell, 433 F.3d 889 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (may infer discrimination when qualifications not significantly better; employer's assessment matters)