McKinley v. Skyline Chili, Inc., 1:11-cv-00344

Mary McKinley, a female born in 1954, began as District Manager for Skyline Chili in 2006 and was later promoted to Market Manager in 2008.
McKinley received mixed performance feedback beginning in 2008, including concerns about response times to customer complaints and leadership effectiveness.
In 2009 and 2010, McKinley received negative performance reviews and a May 25, 2010 written warning outlining ongoing concerns.
Plaintiff complained to Skyline Chili HR about discrimination and that younger male team members were treated differently shortly after the May 2010 letter.
In November 2010, Jay Swallow was promoted to Director of Operations and McKinley was terminated on December 1, 2010 for ongoing performance issues.
McKinley sued alleging ADEA and Ohio age discrimination, Title VII and Ohio sex discrimination, retaliation under ADEA/Title VII and Ohio law, and FMLA (abandoned at summary judgment).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there a prima facie case of age discrimination?	McKinley argues she met the objective qualifications and was replaced by a younger person.	McKinley did not meet legitimate expectations; performance issues justify termination.	Yes; McKinley established a prima facie case under McDonnell Douglas framework
Were defendant's reasons for termination pretextual regarding age discrimination?	Evidence suggests younger, less qualified individuals received favorable treatment; employer relied on subjective factors.	Reasons based on lengthy performance history; evidence does not show pretext.	No; plaintiff failed to show pretext under Manzer and related standards
Did the alleged sex discrimination survive summary judgment?	Discrimination based on sex combined with age discrimination evidence should be probed by a jury.	No evidence of pretext; sex discrimination claim fails for same reasons as age claim.	No; sex discrimination claim failed for lack of pretext
Do retaliation claims survive summary judgment?	Complaint to HR about discrimination constitutes protected activity and causal link to termination.	Complaint was vague; no protected activity or causal link proven; pretext not shown.	No; retaliation claims fail for lack of protected activity and pretext

Manzer v. Diamond Shamrock Chemicals Co., 29 F.3d 1078 (6th Cir. 1994) (three ways to show pretext under McDonnell Douglas framework)
McDonald v. Union Camp Corp., 898 F.2d 1155 (6th Cir. 1990) (prima facie requirement and legitimate reasons burden shift)
Wexler v. White's Fine Furniture, Inc., 317 F.3d 564 (6th Cir. 2003) (objective qualification standard for prima facie case in discrimination)
Cline v. Catholic Diocese of Toledo, 206 F.3d 651 (6th Cir. 1999) (limits consideration of employer's nondiscriminatory reasons in prima facie analysis)
Braithwaite v. Timken Co., 258 F.3d 488 (6th Cir. 2001) (honest belief in reasons; pretext must be shown against employment decision)
Anderson v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 13 F.3d 1120 (7th Cir. 1994) (coworker opinions about performance are not enough for pretext)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment standard; burden on movant to show absence of genuine issue of material fact)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (summary judgment standard; avoid weighing evidence; view in light most favorable to non-movant)