523 F. App'x 213
4th Cir.2013Background
- Hill, a 60-year-old full-time P&D driver for SEFL, was disciplined for performance issues under SEFL's Tommy Thompson productivity system.
- Hill signed a March 3, 2010 notice warning that future policy violations would result in termination.
- After a May 21, 2010 incident involving tardiness and lengthy runs, Hill was offered a night line-haul position or resignation, due to glaucoma-related night-driving limitations.
- Hill was terminated and filed employment discrimination claims, including age discrimination, with the district court granting SEFL summary judgment on the ADEA claim.
- The district court held Hill failed to prove the third and fourth prongs of the prima facie case in the firing context.
- On appeal, the Fourth Circuit reviews de novo and applies the McDonnell Douglas framework, analyzing prongs three (job qualifications) and four (open or replaced by a younger person).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Hill establish prong three of the prima facie case? | Hill met expectations and was qualified for the job. | Hill failed to show he met legitimate SEFL expectations. | No; Hill failed to create a fact question that SEFL’s expectations were illegitimate. |
| Did Hill establish prong four of the prima facie case? | Replacement by a substantially younger worker or open positions show discriminatory impact. | Hill offered no evidence that any replacement was substantially younger or that positions were open due to age. | No; Hill did not adduce evidence that his job was filled by a younger person. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (2009) (but-for causation required for ADEA claims)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment standard and burden shifting)
- Warch v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co., 435 F.3d 510 (4th Cir. 2006) (third-prong burden to show legitimate expectations not shown to be legitimate)
- Stokes v. Westinghouse Savannah River Co., 206 F.3d 420 (4th Cir. 2000) (McDonnell Douglas framework in age discrimination)
- Laber v. Harvey, 438 F.3d 404 (4th Cir. 2006) (presumption of discrimination and burden shifting after prima facie case)
- Smith v. Flax, 618 F.2d 1062 (4th Cir. 1980) (a plaintiff’s own perception of qualification is not determinative)
- Conkwright v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 933 F.2d 231 (4th Cir. 1991) (relevance of decision-maker’s view in evaluating performance)
- Dugan v. Albemarle Cnty. Sch. Bd., 293 F.3d 716 (4th Cir. 2002) (prong definitions in firing context)