Lt. LeRoy Hilde v. City of Eveleth
777 F.3d 998
| 8th Cir. | 2015Background
- LeRoy Hilde (51), a 29-year police veteran and the force’s only lieutenant, applied for Eveleth Chief of Police after the incumbent retired; a three-member commission selected finalists including Hilde and external candidate Timothy Koivunen (43).
- The commission scored candidates on weighted years of service, training/employment (subjective, 20 pts), and an interview (100 pts); pre-interview Hilde led on total points due to high service credit.
- Commissioners inexplicably gave Koivunen perfect interview scores and altered Hilde’s interview scores during deliberations to create a tie; commissioners admitted coordinating/“leveling” scores to reach consensus.
- Commissioners were aware Hilde was retirement-eligible at 50 and stated they sought a "long-term" hire; one commissioner said Hilde’s retirement eligibility "might have" influenced the decision; Hilde never expressed intent to retire.
- Hilde sued under the ADEA and Minnesota Human Rights Act; the district court granted summary judgment for the City, finding Hilde failed to show a prima facie case and failed to prove pretext.
- The Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded, finding genuine issues of material fact whether the commission used retirement eligibility as an age proxy and whether the scoring process was manipulated to mask discrimination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hilde established age discrimination under ADEA/MHRA | Commissioners used Hilde’s retirement eligibility (age-based) as a reason to pass him over | The decision was based on legitimate concerns: retirement eligibility as commitment proxy and Koivunen was "most qualified" | Reversed summary judgment; genuine issues of fact exist on both points |
| Whether retirement eligibility is a lawful, nondiscriminatory reason | Retirement eligibility here functioned as a proxy for age and reflected impermissible age-stereotyping | Retirement eligibility is a legitimate, non-age reason (commitment concern), citing Hazen Paper | Court: retirement eligibility correlated with age here and absent evidence of doubt about commitment, employer failed to articulate nondiscriminatory justification |
| Whether employer’s stated qualifications were pretextual | Manipulation of interview scores, unexplained low training score for Hilde, and departure from protocol suggest pretext | Scoring was subjective; selection of a more qualified candidate is lawful | Court found the score alterations, lack of explanation, and process irregularities create an inference of pretext |
| Whether the age gap was "substantially younger" enough to support inference | An eight-year gap and focus on retirement eligibility made the difference meaningful | Eight-year difference not necessarily "substantially younger" as district court held | Eighth Circuit treated the gap as substantial in context, permitting discrimination inference |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (establishes burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (plaintiff must prove age was the but-for cause)
- Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031 (en banc) (summary judgment review and evidence-of-pretext standards in hiring cases)
- Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604 (employer may rely on pension status distinct from age, but proxy use of pension for age can violate ADEA)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (plaintiff can show pretext and discriminatory motive through circumstantial evidence)
- Kentucky Ret. Sys. v. EEOC, 554 U.S. 135 (clarifies analytic distinction between age and pension status)
- Tramp v. Associated Underwriters, Inc., 768 F.3d 793 (employer assumptions tied to age not divorced from age where correlated)