McCool v. Operative Plasterers and Cement Masons International Association of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO
4:13-cv-13614
E.D. Mich.Feb 3, 2015Background
- Plaintiff Jack McCool, hired in 2001 and later Business Manager of Local 67, was told on June 27, 2012 that Local 67 would merge into Local 514 and that he would be demoted effective November 1, 2012.
- Vice President Dan Rauch allegedly told McCool the demotion was because McCool was "too old." McCool complained to General President Patrick Finley, who deferred to Rauch.
- McCool filed an EEOC charge on October 16, 2012 alleging age discrimination (demotion) and received a right-to-sue letter on May 22, 2013.
- Defendant assigned McCool to Business Agent of Local 514 on November 1, 2012; McCool was terminated on July 22, 2013.
- Defendant moved for summary judgment. The Court granted summary judgment on claims based on termination and retaliation for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, but denied summary judgment on the ADEA demotion claim based on direct evidence (Rauch’s alleged comment).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether McCool exhausted administrative remedies for termination claims (ADEA and state law) | McCool argues his later EEOC filing and right-to-sue letter suffice | Def. argues termination claims were not in the original EEOC charge and occurred after that charge/right-to-sue | Held: Not exhausted; claims 1(b) and 2(b) dismissed |
| Whether McCool exhausted administrative remedies for retaliation based on the demotion | McCool contends his charge and later filings cover retaliation | Def. argues charge mentions only age discrimination/demotion, not retaliation, and demotion prompted the charge (so retaliation not pled) | Held: Not exhausted for retaliation based on demotion; claim 2(a) dismissed |
| Whether McCool produced sufficient evidence of age discrimination for the demotion claim (direct evidence) | McCool points to Rauch’s alleged statement that he was demoted because he was "too old," which is direct evidence of age bias | Def. contends selection was based on legitimate factors (Santos was incumbent mgr, membership composition, re-election concerns, familiarity with groups) | Held: Rauch’s alleged comment constitutes direct evidence; summary judgment denied as to claim 1(a) (demotion) |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment requires no genuine issue of material fact)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (evidence viewed in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (burden-shifting and standards when direct or indirect evidence of discrimination is presented)
- Dixon v. Ashcroft, 392 F.3d 212 (failure to check EEOC charge box not dispositive for exhaustion)
- Randolph v. Ohio Dep't of Youth Servs., 453 F.3d 724 (EEOC complaint construed liberally; claims must reasonably grow out of charge)
- Parry v. Mohawk Motors of Michigan, 236 F.3d 299 (right-to-sue letter is condition precedent, not jurisdictional)