Johnson v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc.
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 19096
| 8th Cir. | 2014Background
- Johnson, age 76, was fired from Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. and alleged age discrimination under the ADEA.
- He had worked as a security guard since the late 1990s and was hired by Securitas in 2003 when the prior employer was acquired; he had a positive work history and was nicknamed “Superman” for dependability.
- Hesse, a Securitas field service manager, repeatedly expressed concerns about Johnson working long hours and suggested he was too old to continue, making age-related comments.
- Johnson was on a Rail Logistics site shift when a Securitas vehicle collided with a stationary semi-trailer; Johnson attempted to report the accident but had car phone signal issues, and the shift ended later than initially noted in some internal documents.
- An internal investigation followed, with Parker (HR) and others discussing the incident; Johnson was asked questions by Parker and informed of termination, with notes of conversations later destroyed by Parker.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Securitas; on appeal, the court reviewed de novo under McDonnell Douglas framework, ultimately affirming the grant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Johnson stated a prima facie case of age discrimination | Johnson shows/sufficient to raise inference of discrimination | Securitas engaged in legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons | Johnson stated a prima facie case; but issue focuses on pretext later |
| Whether Securitas's reasons for termination were pretextual | Evidence creates genuine questions of material fact as to pretext | Reasons were legitimate and not pretextual | No genuine pretext; reasons affirmed as nondiscriminatory |
| whether age-related comments by Hesse create material fact for discrimination | Comments imply age bias influencing termination | Comments insufficient to prove pretext when viewed with legitimate reasons | Insufficient to establish pretext; not enough to show but-for causation |
| whether disparate treatment or changing rationales indicate pretext | No other employees treated similarly; shifting rationales show pretext | No substantial change in rationale; variations are reiterations | Disparate treatment and changing rationales not material pretext evidence |
| whether spoliation of Parker's notes supports inference of pretext | Destruction supports inference of favorable evidence being hidden | Destruction not shown to be intentional to suppress truth | No admissible inference; no abuse of discretion in denying pretext inference |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (establishes burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Ridout v. JBS USA, LLC, 716 F.3d 1079 (8th Cir. 2013) (prima facie case framework and burdens on employer)
- Gibson v. Am. Greetings Corp., 670 F.3d 844 (8th Cir. 2012) (discrimination claims and pretext framework under McDonnell Douglas)
- Jones v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 461 F.3d 982 (8th Cir. 2006) (pretext and evidence evaluation in discrimination cases)
- Twiggs v. Selig, 679 F.3d 990 (8th Cir. 2012) (substantiality of changing reasons in pretext analysis)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (credibility and inferences in summary judgment; jury function)
- Hase v. Mo. Div. of Emp't Sec., 972 F.2d 893 (8th Cir. 1992) (pretext and genuine issue of material fact; credibility)