James Aulick v. Skybridge Americas, Inc.
860 F.3d 613
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- James Aulick, a 61–63-year-old experienced IT director for Skybridge’s fulfillment division, applied for an internal CTO role after a consultant (Brady) recommended centralizing IT and identified Aulick as a strong internal candidate.
- Skybridge publicly posted the CTO position; Aulick interviewed, was encouraged by executives (Cattoor said “the job is yours to lose” and the company was relieved he stopped his job search), but was also explicitly told he was not guaranteed the job.
- An external candidate, Bruce Whitmore (age 50), was later interviewed and hired as CTO; shortly after, Skybridge eliminated Aulick’s position and terminated him (offered brief severance which Aulick declined).
- Aulick filed suit alleging age discrimination under federal and Minnesota law, promissory estoppel, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation; the district court granted summary judgment to Skybridge on all claims.
- On appeal, the Eighth Circuit affirmed summary judgment on (1) age-discrimination claims (no direct evidence; employer proffered legitimate reasons and plaintiff failed to show pretext) and (2) fraud and negligent-misrepresentation claims (no false representation and no justifiable reliance by an at-will employee).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cattoor’s “New Face” comments and related statements are direct evidence of age discrimination | Aulick: statements show a specific link between age bias and hiring/termination decisions | Skybridge: remarks were facially/contextually neutral or stray; not linked to decisionmaking | Court: Not direct evidence; comments were neutral/stray and insufficient |
| Whether circumstantial evidence establishes age discrimination (McDonnell Douglas framework) | Aulick: prima facie case met; age was motivating factor; inconsistent employer explanations and terminations of other older employees show pretext | Skybridge: legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons—Whitmore’s superior experience with call-center+fulfillment and audit-driven consolidation eliminating Aulick’s role | Court: Accepted prima facie case for argument’s sake but found employer reasons credible; plaintiff failed to show pretext or that age more likely motivated decisions |
| Whether Skybridge fraudulently misrepresented that Aulick would get the CTO or induced him to stay | Aulick: executives led him to stop job search and said he had inside track/the job is his to lose, amounting to false promise | Skybridge: never promised the job; expressly said not guaranteed; comments conveyed a chance, not a promise | Court: No actionable false representation; statements optimistic but not promises, so fraud claim fails |
| Whether Skybridge negligently misrepresented Aulick’s standing or future project implementation causing reliance/damages | Aulick: assurances (including Morris’s praise of proposed project) induced him to remain and withdraw applications | Skybridge: no false present/factual statements; at-will employee did not show justifiable reliance or that he declined concrete offers | Court: No false statements proved; as an at-will employee with no lost offers, reliance unjustifiable; negligent-misrepresentation claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (establishes burden-shifting framework for circumstantial discrimination claims)
- Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031 (8th Cir. 2011) (summary judgment review and standards on direct evidence and pretext)
- Carraher v. Target Corp., 503 F.3d 714 (8th Cir. 2007) (elements for discrimination claims and evidentiary framework)
- Stacks v. Sw. Bell Yellow Pages, Inc., 27 F.3d 1316 (8th Cir. 1994) (example of a decisionmaker’s remark constituting direct evidence)
- Twymon v. Wells Fargo & Co., 462 F.3d 925 (8th Cir. 2006) (stray remarks and statements by nondecisionmakers do not constitute direct evidence)
- Fisher v. Pharmacia & Upjohn Co., 225 F.3d 915 (8th Cir. 2000) (comparisons of prior positive reviews to later criticisms can support pretext in some cases)
- Elam v. Regions Fin. Corp., 601 F.3d 873 (8th Cir. 2010) (court will not second-guess employer business judgments absent intentional discrimination)
- Hanks v. Hubbard Broad., Inc., 493 N.W.2d 302 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992) (an at-will employee who merely continues to work without showing declined offers cannot establish reliance for misrepresentation claims)