John Delaney v. Bank of America Corp.
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 17205
2d Cir.2014Background
- Delaney began working for BoA in 1988 and remained at-will until his 2010 termination.
- From 1996–2006 he worked in High Yield Sales, receiving base pay plus discretionary incentives.
- In 2005 he transferred to Fixed Income Middle Markets, paid on a salary/commission plan with production credits.
- In March 2010 he was transferred back to High Yield, with compensation reverting to the High Yield structure and new accounts added.
- Delaney received a negative mid-year review in July 2010, citing decreased production and performance concerns; in September 2010 BoA conducted a large RIF and terminated Delaney, the oldest and only High Yield employee so terminated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Delaney proves but-for causation in ADEA termination | Delaney argues age was the but-for cause of his termination. | BoA asserts the RIF and poor performance; age not determinative. | BoA's reason not pretextual; but-for causation not shown. |
| Whether BoA’s RIF decision was a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason | Delaney contends the RIF was a pretext for agebias. | BoA shows a company-wide RIF targeting underperformers. | RIF legitimate nondiscriminatory reason supported by record. |
| Whether evidence of a draft EEOC charge is admissible to prove discrimination | Delaney seeks to use the draft charge to show age bias. | The draft is hearsay and inadmissible for summary judgment. | Draft EEOC charge inadmissible; even if admissible, not sufficient to create triable issue. |
| Whether the district court properly exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the contract claim | Delaney argues parallel state claim should proceed. | Claims share common nucleus of operative fact; discretion to retain. | Abuse of discretion not shown; supplemental jurisdiction affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (Supreme Court 1973) (establishes the prima facie burden–shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (Supreme Court 1981) (describes burden-shifting andPretext considerations)
- Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (Supreme Court 2009) (holds but-for causation applies to ADEA claims)
- Gorzynski v. JetBlue Airways Corp., 596 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2010) (applies but-for causation standard in ADEA pretext analysis)
- Roge v. NYP Holdings, Inc., 257 F.3d 164 (2d Cir. 2001) (recognizes RIF as legitimate nondiscriminatory reason)