Jones v. Price
695 F. App'x 374
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- In 2009, HHS issued seven CDC vacancies domestically (three Public Health Advisors, four Health Communications Specialists).
- All positions were United States-based; six in Atlanta, one in Lansing; each required one year of specialized experience at GS-11 or GS-12 level.
- Jones, age 64, applied to all seven; HR reviewed and found him not qualified for any due to lack of required experience.
- Jones alleged age discrimination; HHS held an ALJ hearing and found no discrimination; EEOC affirmed.
- District court granted summary judgment for HHS; Jones’ challenge to protective order/sanctions was denied.
- The issue on appeal was whether the seven domestic CDC positions violated the ADEA; overseas WHO-related details were not at issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jones showed direct or circumstantial discrimination evidence | Jones argues direct evidence via CDC witness on WHO age policy shows discrimination. | HHS contends WHO policy does not apply to domestic CDC positions; evidence is not direct. | No direct evidence; limited to circumstantial under McDonnell Douglas. |
| Whether HHS’s reasons for not hiring Jones were pretextual | Jones contends the reasons were pretextual circumstantially. | HHS provided legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for non-selection. | No showing of pretext; summary judgment for Secretary sustained. |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion denying protective order/sanctions | Jones challenges deposition conduct and seeks sanctions. | Court properly exercised discretion; no Rule 30 violation or bad-faith conduct. | No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden-shifting framework for circumstantial discrimination claims)
- Roberts v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., 733 F.3d 1306 (10th Cir. 2013) (circumstantial evidence framework under ADEA)
- Bennett v. Windstream Commc’ns, Inc., 792 F.3d 1261 (10th Cir. 2015) (summary judgment standard; liberal pro se construction)
- SEC v. Merrill Scott & Assocs., Ltd., 600 F.3d 1262 (10th Cir. 2010) (discovery and evidentiary discretion)
- Helget v. City of Hays, 844 F.3d 1216 (10th Cir. 2017) (credibility attacks and summary judgment relevance)