Frankie Lewis v. City of Detroit, 702 F. App'x 274

Background

Detroit PD underwent a department-wide reorganization after James Craig became Chief in July 2013; command-level officers had to reapply and many appointments were eliminated.
Plaintiffs are six former command-level officers (ages 49–60) who were demoted or not reappointed and sued under the ADEA and Michigan’s ELCRA for age discrimination.
Craig used an informal, largely nonwritten selection process and relied on consultant Robert Wasserman’s interviews/notes; several command officers retired rather than apply.
Plaintiffs contend Wasserman collected years-of-service/age-related information and that Craig referred to some officers as “retired in place,” arguing this shows age animus.
The district court granted summary judgment for the City; the Sixth Circuit majority affirmed, finding insufficient direct or circumstantial evidence of age-based discrimination.
A dissent argued plaintiffs presented enough circumstantial evidence (Wasserman’s notes, “retired in place,” lack of interviews, opaque ‘‘weeding’’) to create triable issues under Michigan law and the ADEA.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether there is direct evidence that Craig acted because of plaintiffs’ ages	Wasserman’s age questions/notes, Craig’s “retired in place” phrase and alleged knowledge of ages show direct animus	Craig testified he did not know ages; years-of-service ≠ age; comments are ambiguous and not shown to have motivated decisions	No direct evidence; plaintiffs failed to prove Craig both knew ages and acted on them
Whether plaintiffs established a prima facie case (circumstantial) given the RIF/restructure context	Statistics and process irregularities show older officers were singled out; Wasserman’s notes and lack of interviews support inference of discrimination	Reorganization was a workforce reduction; statistics are unreliable/small sample; many retirees skew averages; some replacements not significantly younger	Majority: McKissic, Suchoski, Serda failed prima facie (RIF standard); Lewis failed under ADEA (replacement not significantly younger) but Lewis and Sroka have ELCRA prima facie; Sroka meets ADEA prima facie
Whether the City articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for adverse actions	Plaintiffs: City’s explanations are vague and post hoc; Craig relied on Wasserman and nontransparent criteria	City cited performance-based reasons, peer/community feedback, Wasserman’s assessments, and need to restructure—specific to each plaintiff	City met burden to articulate clear, reasonably specific nondiscriminatory reasons for each plaintiff
Whether plaintiffs proved those reasons were pretext for age discrimination	Plaintiffs point to subjective process, ‘‘retired in place’’ phrasing, and Wasserman’s age-related notes as evidence of pretext	City’s individualized performance explanations and distinctions in Wasserman’s notes (positive vs negative traits) negate inference of age-based motive	Plaintiffs failed to show pretext; majority affirmed summary judgment. Dissent would have found triable issues and reversed

Key Cases Cited

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (establishes burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (ADEA requires but-for causation)
Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604 (years of service distinct from age; employer may base decisions on tenure without being age-based)
Barnes v. GenCorp, Inc., 896 F.2d 1457 (6th Cir. 1990) (heightened evidentiary showing in RIF cases; definition of "replacement")
Grosjean v. First Energy Corp., 349 F.3d 332 (6th Cir. 2003) (replacement must be "significantly younger" under ADEA)
Simpson v. Midland-Ross Corp., 823 F.2d 937 (6th Cir. 1987) (statistical evidence must have valid methodology and adequate sample)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden-shifting principles)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (standard for genuine issue of material fact on summary judgment)