James Hinga v. MIC Group, L.L.C., 609 F. App'x 823

Hinga, a 76-year-old machinist, lapped parts for MIC Group’s NEMA 7 actuators; a 2010 inspection failure led MIC to recall 662 actuators and incur ~ $194,000 in costs.
MIC’s investigation blamed improper machine maintenance and found Hinga failed to discover or properly inspect defective lapped parts; a final-assembly employee, Joel Watts, also contributed.
Hinga and Watts were offered resignation in lieu of termination; both accepted. MIC implemented formal inspection procedures and outsourced lapping.
Hinga sued under the ADEA (age discrimination) and Title VII (race/national origin); Title VII claims were dismissed for failure to exhaust; exemplary ADEA damages were dismissed.
The district court granted summary judgment for MIC, finding Hinga failed to establish a prima facie case because he did not identify similarly situated younger employees who were not discharged. Hinga appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Hinga established a prima facie ADEA case by identifying similarly situated younger comparators	Hinga pointed to three younger employees (Ashorn, Glenz, Warzon) who were not discharged for similar misconduct	MIC argued the comparators had different jobs, responsibilities, and clean disciplinary records, so they were not proper comparators	Affirmed: comparators were not similarly situated (different duties, not responsible for lapping/flatness inspections, different violation histories)
Whether summary judgment is inappropriate in employment-discrimination cases	Hinga urged a relaxed summary-judgment standard for such cases	MIC maintained the ordinary summary-judgment standard applies	Rejected: ordinary summary-judgment standard applies; no special rule for employment cases
Whether differences in conduct or duties can be excused because employees worked nearby, same shift, or moved with company acquisition	Hinga argued proximity, shifts, and shared employment history show similarity	MIC said those factors do not overcome differences in responsibilities and disciplinary histories	Held: proximity/shift/history irrelevant; substantive job duties and conduct controls similarity analysis
Whether court needed to reach pretext if prima facie case not shown	Hinga argued issues of pretext existed	MIC argued court need not reach pretext absent prima facie showing	Held: because no prima facie case, the court did not reach pretext question

Rogers v. Bromac Title Servs., L.L.C., 755 F.3d 347 (5th Cir. 2014) (summary-judgment standard applied de novo)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment requires no genuine dispute of material fact)
Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (courts view facts in light most favorable to nonmovant, with limits)
Jackson v. Cal-Western Packaging Corp., 602 F.3d 374 (ADEA prima facie elements and burden shifting)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
Machinchick v. PB Power, Inc., 398 F.3d 345 (defendant’s burden to articulate nondiscriminatory reason)
Lee v. Kansas City S. Ry. Co., 574 F.3d 253 (elements for similarly situated comparator)
Bryant v. Compass Grp. USA Inc., 413 F.3d 471 (less-favorable treatment compared to similarly situated employees)
Wyvill v. United Companies Life Ins. Co., 212 F.3d 296 (striking differences can explain different treatment)
Moss v. BMC Software, Inc., 610 F.3d 917 (applying ordinary summary-judgment analysis in employment cases)
Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031 (Eighth Circuit rejecting special summary-judgment standard in employment cases)