Hugh Rosenthal v. Nat'l Beverage Corp.
701 F. App'x 472
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- Rosenthal formed RCA and contracted with Faygo in 1992 to provide marketing services; Faygo paid RCA, which paid Rosenthal a salary.
- In 2008 Rosenthal reduced his schedule to part-time (three days/week); thereafter he alleges repeated inquiries about retirement by Faygo executives and receipt of age-related health articles.
- In November 2011 Faygo posted a Brand Manager job; on July 24, 2012 Chittaro (Faygo EVP) terminated Rosenthal (age 68). A younger employee, age 37, was later hired for the role.
- Defendants explained termination as nondiscriminatory: dissatisfaction with Rosenthal’s performance, unprofessional/sarcastic communications, resistance to broader marketing initiatives, and concerns about social media response.
- Rosenthal sued under the ADEA and Michigan ELCRA; the district court granted summary judgment for defendants, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rosenthal established a prima facie ADEA/ELCRA claim | Rosenthal argued the record supports a prima facie case (age, qualified, discharged, replaced by younger worker) | Defendants disputed elements but district court assumed prima facie in Rosenthal's favor and proceeded | Court accepted district court’s approach: it assumed prima facie was met and moved to pretext; no reversible error |
| Whether defendants articulated legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for termination | Rosenthal contended district court selectively relied on record and improperly resolved factual disputes | Defendants asserted legitimate reasons: dissatisfaction with work, poor teamwork, unprofessional emails, need for expanded brand manager duties | Court held defendants offered ample nondiscriminatory reasons (performance/dissatisfaction) |
| Whether defendants’ reasons were pretext for age discrimination | Rosenthal argued prior retirement inquiries, age-related emails, and use of terms like "traditional" indicate pretext | Defendants argued inquiries and emails did not show pressure to retire or decisionmaker animus; proffered evidence supported performance-based decision | Court held Rosenthal failed to raise genuine dispute of pretext; subjective impressions and non-decisionmaker comments insufficient |
| Whether district court erred by citing Manzer re: additional evidence requirement | Rosenthal claimed Manzer required extra evidence beyond prima facie; relied on that to attack district court’s pretext analysis | Defendants relied on district court's ruling; appellate court noted Reeves supersedes Manzer but found any Manzer citation harmless here | Court acknowledged mis-citation but affirmed: even under proper law Rosenthal failed to show pretext |
Key Cases Cited
- Geiger v. Tower Auto., 579 F.3d 614 (6th Cir. 2009) (framework for ADEA/ELCRA disparate-treatment claims)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000) (prima facie evidence may suffice to show pretext when combined with proof defendant’s reason is false)
- St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993) (plaintiff must show the employer’s stated reason was false and that discrimination was the real reason)
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (2002) (prima facie elements and pleading standards in employment discrimination cases)
- Cicero v. Borg-Warner Auto., Inc., 280 F.3d 579 (6th Cir. 2002) (unsatisfactory performance is a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for termination)