Jack Chester v. Directv, L.L.C.
683 F. App'x 344
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Chester worked as a field supervisor for DIRECTV after DIRECTV acquired his prior employer; he was hired at 56 and promoted a year later.
- As field supervisor he was responsible for technicians’ performance, including Service on Service (SOS) repeat-service metrics (30/60/90-day targets: 1%, 1.5%, 2%).
- Chester’s SOS rates significantly exceeded targets and persisted despite warnings; he received multiple write-ups, including a “final warning,” and was noted for unprofessional correspondence with an office administrator.
- At a late-2012 meeting with upper management, Chester allegedly could not identify his best and worst technicians and allegedly answered performance questions incorrectly; management cited this as part of the basis for termination.
- Chester (age 59 at termination) sued under the ADEA claiming younger supervisors with similar SOS/discipline histories were not fired; the district court granted summary judgment for DIRECTV, finding Chester failed to show age was the but-for cause of his termination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Chester established the fourth element of an ADEA prima facie case (discharged because of age or replaced by younger) | Chester: other, younger supervisors had similar off-target SOS rates and discipline but were not fired, showing age discrimination | DIRECTV: Chester had worse overall performance, separate unprofessional conduct, and failed to demonstrate he was treated differently because of age | Court: Chester failed to show he was discharged because of age; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether Chester showed pretext or that he did not commit the alleged misconduct (Mayberry theory) | Chester: he answered the performance questions correctly and thus did not commit the violation used to terminate him | DIRECTV: Chester offered no specific evidence (e.g., the correct answers) or follow-up to correct a misunderstanding; poor SOS performance and prior warnings would have led to termination regardless | Court: Chester presented only conclusory assertions and no admissible evidence to create a genuine issue of fact; Mayberry claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Hagen v. Aetna Ins. Co., 808 F.3d 1022 (5th Cir. 2015) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Robinson v. Orient Marine Co., 505 F.3d 364 (5th Cir. 2007) (drawing inferences for nonmovant at summary judgment)
- Brown v. City of Houston, 337 F.3d 539 (5th Cir. 2003) (unsupported speculation insufficient to defeat summary judgment)
- Reed v. Neopost USA, Inc., 701 F.3d 434 (5th Cir. 2012) (affirming on any record-supported ground)
- Phillips v. Leggett & Platt, Inc., 658 F.3d 452 (5th Cir. 2011) (ADEA prima facie framework)
- Moss v. BMC Software, Inc., 610 F.3d 917 (5th Cir. 2010) (but-for causation standard under ADEA)
- Mayberry v. Vought Aircraft Co., 55 F.3d 1086 (5th Cir. 1995) (employee may establish prima facie case by showing he did not violate work rule)
- Brown v. CSC Logic, Inc., 82 F.3d 651 (5th Cir. 1996) (same-actor inference regarding hiring and firing)