Haigh v. Gelita USA, Inc., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 1775

Haigh, born May 18, 1937, was hired by Gelita USA, Inc. in May 1998 as a senior process engineer and project manager.
Preexisting injuries from a 1990s motor vehicle accident caused chronic pain and mobility issues, requiring accommodation and potential assistance for inspections.
Haigh received annual performance evaluations showing generally mid-range ratings, including a 4.8 in 1998 and around 5.0–5.4 in subsequent years under various supervisors.
In 2002 Haigh became an environmental engineer reporting to Mark Skibinski; performance concerns emerged, including missed deadlines and communication issues.
Haigh contends his operating assistant was removed, affecting his job performance, and he sought an accommodation for another assistant.
Haigh was terminated on October 31, 2003, at age 66, after meetings about deficiencies and Haigh’s refusal to work under Skibinski; he then sued for ADA disability discrimination, ADEA age discrimination, and retaliation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether summary judgment was proper on Haigh's ADEA claim	Haigh argues there is sufficient evidence the termination was age-based.	Gelita contends Haigh failed to prove a prima facie case or pretext for age discrimination.	Yes, Haigh failed to show pretext; no genuine issue of age discrimination.
Whether the denial of Haigh's new-trial motion was proper	Haigh asserts trial health issues affected participation and new evidence could alter the outcome.	The district court adequately evaluated participation and evidence; new evidence not shown to be material.	Yes, district court properly denied new-trial motion.

Erenberg v. Methodist Hospital, 357 F.3d 787 (8th Cir.2004) (discrimination prima facie analysis for required qualifications)
McGinnis v. Union Pacific Railroad, 496 F.3d 868 (8th Cir.2007) (minimal qualification required; misapplication of qualification prong)
Slattery v. Swiss Reinsurance Am. Corp., 248 F.3d 87 (2d Cir.2001) (prima facie burden and minimal qualifications interpretation)
Roeben v. BG Excelsior Ltd P'ship, 545 F.3d 639 (8th Cir.2008) (pretext standard and inference of discriminatory animus)
Fitzgerald v. Action, Inc., 521 F.3d 867 (8th Cir.2008) (presumption against discrimination when older employee hired)
Peterson v. Scott County, 406 F.3d 515 (8th Cir.2005) (employer's business decisions and non-discriminatory reasons permitted)
Hill v. St. Louis Univ., 123 F.3d 1114 (8th Cir.1997) (ADEA does not prohibit poor performance or unsound business practices)
Hanebrink v. Brown Shoe Co., 110 F.3d 644 (8th Cir.1997) (general principle against second-guessing personnel decisions)