Larry E. Hogue v. Secretary, US Department of Army
15-10028
| 11th Cir. | Dec 14, 2017Background
- Larry E. Hogue, a federal employee, appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the Army on his Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) claim.
- The Army terminated Hogue for insubordination after an incident in which he allegedly challenged and acted disrespectfully toward his supervisor, Belinda Hilton, in front of staff; several coworkers testified about the incident.
- Hogue asserted age discrimination and named three individuals (Robert Paisley, Sondra Duboise, Genise Aragon) whom he claimed were substantially younger and replaced him, but submitted no admissible evidence proving their ages or that they replaced his position.
- The Army proffered a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for termination (insubordination) and submitted witness testimony supporting that reason.
- Hogue did not present evidence rebutting the Army’s account or showing that the stated reason was false or that age was the real motive; many of his other claims (retaliation under the WPA, due process, EEOC investigator conduct) were raised without developed argument and were treated as abandoned on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hogue established a prima facie ADEA case (including that a substantially younger person filled his position) | Hogue contends he was replaced by younger employees (Paisley, Duboise, Aragon) | Army argues Hogue produced no evidence that any replacement was substantially younger or that they filled his position | Held: Hogue failed to establish a prima facie case; no record evidence shows replacements were younger or filled his role |
| Whether the Army’s proffered reason (insubordination) was pretext for age discrimination | Hogue argues the termination was age-based rather than for misconduct | Army argues it terminated Hogue for insubordination, supported by supervisor and coworker testimony | Held: Army’s reason was legitimate and unrebutted; Hogue did not show falsity or age as real reason (no pretext) |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate given credibility disputes | Hogue challenges credibility of Army witnesses and asks court to credit his version | Army relies on testimonial evidence; absence of contrary admissible evidence from Hogue | Held: Summary judgment appropriate; Hogue failed to create a genuine dispute of material fact or produce evidence undermining Army witnesses |
| Whether other claims (WPA retaliation, due process, EEOC conduct) survive appeal | Hogue raises these claims in passing or for first time on appeal | Army contends Hogue abandoned these issues by failing to brief them | Held: These claims are abandoned or not considered on appeal for lack of developed argument or because raised first on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (framework for burden-shifting in discrimination cases)
- Kragor v. Takeda Pharm. Am., Inc., 702 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2012) (elements of ADEA prima facie case)
- Brooks v. City Comm’n of Jefferson Cty., Ala., 446 F.3d 1160 (11th Cir. 2006) (pretext requires showing reason was false and discrimination was real reason)
- Combs v. Plantation Patterns, 106 F.3d 1519 (11th Cir. 1997) (types of evidence that can show pretext)
- Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678 (11th Cir. 2014) (appellant must show all independent grounds for judgment are incorrect)
- Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870 (11th Cir. 2008) (issues not briefed on appeal are abandoned)