Loren Noreen v. PharMerica Corporation
833 F.3d 988
| 8th Cir. | 2016Background
- Loren Noreen, a pharmacist at PharMerica’s Fridley, MN location since 1975, was terminated in a December 30, 2013 reduction-in-force (RIF) and later denied rehire; he sued for age discrimination under federal and Minnesota law.
- PharMerica uses a written RIF procedure employing a multi-tab "RIF Decision Matrix" that assigns overall performance ratings (O, E, M, NI, U) and directs sub-ranking within rating groups, with HR review for adverse impact on protected classes.
- In practice, regional directors (Rife, then Teich) consistently sub-ranked all pharmacists together rather than first grouping by performance-rating categories; the December 2013 matrix ranked pharmacists together and selected lowest scorers for termination, including Noreen (rated "M").
- After termination, Noreen applied for posted positions that were never filled; when a pharmacist resigned in March 2014, Teich considered but declined to rehire Noreen because of Noreen’s allegedly threatening reaction at his termination meeting and instead hired someone he previously knew.
- Noreen alleged (1) PharMerica deviated from its own RIF guidelines to his detriment, (2) workforce-age statistics demonstrate discriminatory effect, and (3) stray comments and HR actions show discriminatory motive. The district court granted summary judgment for PharMerica; the Eighth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there sufficient evidence to submit age-discrimination claims under Minnesota law? | Noreen: deviation from written RIF process caused his termination and supports inference of age bias; statistics and comments corroborate. | PharMerica: consistently applied a different but uniform practice (sub-ranking all pharmacists together); termination due to low sub-ranking and business loss; non-hiring due to lack of open positions or poor post-termination conduct. | Held: No submissible case under Minnesota law; deviations were consistent practice, statistics not significant, comments insufficient. |
| Did plaintiff show age was a motivating/but-for cause under federal ADEA? | Noreen: same evidence supports federal claim. | PharMerica: legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons; no evidence age was but-for cause. | Held: Fails under the more demanding federal standard as well. |
| Can deviation from employer policy alone support an inference of discrimination? | Noreen: departure from written guideline (not grouping by ratings) shows improper motive. | PharMerica: departures from written policy do not indicate discrimination when applied consistently to a group. | Held: Deviation does not create inference because the practice was uniformly applied across RIFs. |
| Do workforce-age statistics and hiring patterns support an inference of discrimination? | Noreen: average age dropped and Teich hired younger pharmacists after RIFs, indicating bias. | PharMerica: averages not statistically meaningful, small sample sizes, alternative explanations. | Held: Statistics are not probative or statistically significant to infer age discrimination. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (explains ADEA requires but-for causation)
- U.S. Postal Serv. Bd. of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711 (standard on submitting claims to jury)
- Hilde v. City of Eveleth, 777 F.3d 998 (employer's individualized manipulation of procedures can support inference of discrimination)
- Floyd v. Mo. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 188 F.3d 932 (departure from policy does not support inference when variation is broadly applied)
- Carraher v. Target Corp., 503 F.3d 714 (small sample sizes and anecdotal evidence insufficient to show discriminatory motive)
- Stidham v. Minn. Mining & Mfg., Inc., 399 F.3d 935 (analysis of workforce averages and relevance to discrimination claims)
- Johnson v. Securitas Sec. Servs. USA, Inc., 769 F.3d 605 (affirming that summary judgment review is de novo and may be affirmed on any supporting ground)