Kocsis v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.
963 F. Supp. 2d 1002
D. Haw.2013Background
- Kocsis, pro se, filed July 27, 2012 alleging age discrimination by Delta Air Lines.
- Delta moved for summary judgment on June 13, 2013; opposition and amended opposition followed; hearing July 29, 2013.
- Kocsis was a Purser, originally with Northwest Airlines; after the 2008 merger he remained a Purser at Delta.
- Duty-free deposits were handled via Master Deposit Envelopes (MDEs); missing MDEs prompted a dual-audit procedure at Narita and Honolulu.
- Three January 2011 MDEs allegedly missing (463051, 462455, and another) led to firing of Kocsis on March 30, 2011, when he was 52 years old.
- Court grants Delta summary judgment on disparate impact and pattern-or-practice claims, but grants Kocsis Rule 56(d) discovery relief for disparate-treatment claims; Delta’s motion is deemed withdrawn as to those claims; discovery deadline set for Sept. 13, 2013, with possible renewed motion by Sept. 27, 2013.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ADEA disparate-treatment claim viability | Kocsis argues age-based discrimination via comparator (younger employee) and pretext. | Delta asserts no admissible comparator evidence and that evidence is either irrelevant or hearsay. | Disparate-treatment claims not yet decided; Rule 56(d) discovery granted to develop facts. |
| ADEA disparate-impact and pattern-practice viability | Kocsis contends neutral practices disproportionately affect older workers. | No identified facially neutral practice or evidence of class-wide impact. | Court grants summary judgment on disparate-impact and pattern-practice theories. |
| Hawaii state-law § 378-2 age-discrimination claims viability | Kocsis invokes Hawaii statute mirroring ADEA protections. | Same burden-shifting framework applies; no additional evidence of disparate impact. | Summary judgment granted on state-law disparate-impact/pattern-practice theories; focus remains on disparate-treatment discovery. |
| Rule 56(d) discovery request validity | Kocsis seeks further discovery (depositions of Baker, O’Dwyer, Takao) to oppose summary judgment. | Discovery should be specific, diligent, and relevant; past discovery has been insufficient. | Rule 56(d) relief granted for disparate-treatment evidence; Delta's motion withdrawn as to these claims; orderly discovery to proceed. |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (establishes burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Shelley v. Geren, 666 F.3d 599 (9th Cir. 2012) (applies McDonnell Douglas framework to ADEA claims)
- Rose v. Wells Fargo & Co., 902 F.2d 1417 (9th Cir. 1990) (disparate-impact proof principles for employment discrimination)
- O'Connor v. Consol. Coin Caterers Corp., 517 U.S. 308 (1996) (comparator within protected class standard for inference of discrimination)
- Smith v. City of Jackson, 544 U.S. 228 (2005) (requires identifying specific employment practices causing disparities)
- Pottenger v. Potlatch Corp., 329 F.3d 740 (9th Cir. 2003) (disparate-impact proof requires facially neutral practice causally linked to disparity)
- Shoppe v. Gucci Am., Inc., 14 P.3d 1049 (Haw. 2000) (Hawaii pretext framework under §378-2)