Marsh v. Skateland 132nd Street, Inc, 8:11-cv-00143

Marsh is a 65-year-old female who worked for Skateland as a bookkeeper since 1994 (started at age 47) and was based at Skatedaze in Omaha; supervision by owner Scott Cernik.
She was terminated at age 63½ and replaced by a person 26 years old; separation notice cited hiring replacement at substantial savings.
Marsh’s duties included maintaining general ledger, payroll, tax payments, payables/receivables, and financial statements; her ending wage was $20/hour, replacement paid $16/hour.
Marsh alleges retirement pressure and jokes about retirement by her supervisor, and her hours were reduced in July 2009; she claims no formal disciplinary actions were taken.
Skateland contends Marsh was terminated for poor performance and cost savings; management reportedly shifted explanations and had limited documentation of performance concerns; the majority of the workforce is under 40.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
But-for cause under the ADEA	Marsh argues retirement comments and younger replacement show discriminatory motive	Skateland asserts legitimate performance/cost reasons for termination	Issue for trial; summary judgment denied
Pretext for termination	Evidence of shifting reasons, lack of documentation, and age-related remarks suggest pretext	Reasons were purportedly based on performance and cost savings	Issue for trial; pretext evidence supports submission to jury
Credibility and circumstantial evidence of age bias	Independent performance endorsements and aging workforce context support discrimination inference	Credibility issues for jury; performance disputes remain	Issue for trial; evidence could yield inference of discrimination

Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (U.S. 2009) (but-for causation required for ADEA disparate treatment)
Baker v. Silver Oak Senior Living Mgmt. Co., L.C., 581 F.3d 684 (8th Cir. 2009) (no heightened evidentiary bar; burden to show but-for discrimination)
Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031 (8th Cir. 2011) (summary judgment proper but discrimination cases not exempt)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (acceleration of burden on moving party to show absence of genuine issue)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (court can’t weigh evidence at summary judgment; determine material disputes)
Fisher v. Pharmacia & Upjohn, 225 F.3d 915 (8th Cir. 2000) (stray remarks can contribute to an inference of discrimination when combined with other evidence)
Haigh v. Gelita USA, Inc., 632 F.3d 464 (8th Cir. 2011) (McDonnell Douglas framework for age discrimination claims)