Holman v. Textron Aviation, Inc., 6:23-cv-01267

Larry Holman, born in 1960, worked for Textron (and its predecessor) from 2008, eventually promoted to a management role (Value Stream Leader), with mandatory reporting duties under Textron’s No-Harassment Policy.
In 2021, an employee reported sexual harassment by Holman’s subordinate, Sidney Toppah. Textron investigated and found both the harassment and that Holman failed to report the incident properly.
Holman confronted the accused employee instead of notifying HR or management as required, leading to a significant delay in Textron learning about the harassment.
Following the investigation, Textron offered Holman the choice to retire, which he accepted; his younger replacement and differential treatment of another manager, Matlock, led to this lawsuit.
Holman alleged age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), asserting his termination was pretextual, especially given more lenient treatment of a younger peer for similar conduct.
Textron moved for summary judgment, arguing the discipline was for policy violation, not age.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Holman’s termination age-based?	Termination motivated by age, more severe than younger colleague for same issue	Termination was for failing to report harassment, not for age	No, insufficient evidence of age as but-for cause
Is disparate discipline evidence of bias?	Matlock, a younger supervisor, only counseled for similar reporting failure	Matlock’s conduct was less serious, and roles differed	No, not similarly situated or comparable conduct
Did Textron fail to follow its policies?	Deviations or flaws in investigation show pretext/biased termination	Any investigation flaws not linked to age bias or direct harm	No, no policy deviation tied to age or direct harm
Were Textron’s rationales inconsistent?	Rationales misstated/misrepresented to EEOC or in documents	Evolving understanding of events; primary rationale was consistent	No, no credibility undermined; primary reason clear

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (ADEA requires "but-for" causation)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden-shifting framework in discrimination cases)
Texas Dept. of Comm. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (burden on employer: articulate legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason)
Kendrick v. Penske Transp. Servs., Inc., 220 F.3d 1220 (comparator analysis for disparate discipline)
Riggs v. AirTran Airways, Inc., 497 F.3d 1108 (focus is on employer’s honestly held belief)
Dewitt v. S.W. Bell Tel. Co., 845 F.3d 1299 (court should not second-guess business decisions with honest belief)