Jay Schmitt v. Central Processing Corporation
675 F. App'x 615
7th Cir.2017Background
- Jay Schmitt, a 59-year-old with 30+ years at a concrete-products plant, was demoted from plant manager to commercial salesperson after a 2009 acquisition and repeatedly furloughed in slow seasons.
- In 2013, Preston Moore resigned; 38-year-old Lyndell Borcherding (little prior bidding experience) was promoted to Moore’s sales role; Schmitt temporarily handled some project-coordinator tasks until a new coordinator was hired.
- In July 2013 County Materials hired 33-year-old Christopher Everette as project coordinator (entry-level, paid hourly); in October 2013 the company hired 57-year-old Andy Keenan as an additional salesperson with stronger northern-Illinois contacts.
- In spring 2014, Boma consolidated overlapping sales responsibilities between Keenan and Schmitt and terminated Schmitt effective April 1, 2014, citing Keenan’s customer contacts and Borcherding’s purportedly deeper skill set.
- Schmitt sued under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, arguing younger employees (initially Everette, later Borcherding and Everette) assumed his duties; the district court granted summary judgment for defendants, finding no proper comparator and no specific evidence of pretext.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Schmitt established a prima facie ADEA claim by identifying a similarly situated younger employee | Schmitt: Borcherding and Everette performed his duties and are substantially younger comparators | County Materials: Schmitt was a salaried salesperson; Everette was an entry-level coordinator and not comparable | Court: Schmitt failed to show Everette was a proper comparator but did show Borcherding was similarly situated; prima facie case established based on Borcherding |
| Whether employer’s stated reason for termination was pretext for age discrimination | Schmitt: Timing of assignments and retention of younger employees suggest pretext/conspiracy to fire him | County Materials: Fired Schmitt for legitimate business reasons—Keenen’s contacts and Borcherding’s deeper skill set | Held: No admissible evidence of dishonesty; plaintiff failed to raise a genuine factual dispute of pretext; employer’s reasons not shown to be lie |
| Proper legal framework for analyzing discrimination evidence | Schmitt relied on McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting and comparisons among employees | County Materials invoked comparator analysis and business-judgment reasons | Court: Applied Ortiz (totality-of-evidence approach) but used comparator/prima-facie analysis to identify issue of pretext |
| Whether disputed factual issues precluded summary judgment | Schmitt: Disputed duties and timing create triable issues | County Materials: Facts show distinct roles and legitimate staffing decisions | Held: Disputed facts about duties existed, but absence of evidence challenging employer’s stated reasons meant summary judgment for defendants was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (framework for burden-shifting in employment discrimination)
- Ortiz v. Werner Enters., Inc., 834 F.3d 760 (ask whether a reasonable jury could find discrimination from all evidence)
- Boss v. Castro, 816 F.3d 910 (definition of a "similarly situated" comparator)
- Balderston v. Fairbanks Morse Engine Div. of Coltec Indus., 328 F.3d 309 (rejecting comparator with substantially lower pay and experience)