McMichael v. Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc.
934 F.3d 447
| 5th Cir. | 2019Background
- McMichael, a 59-year-old toolpusher, was hired by Transocean in 2001 and worked on the Discoverer Clear Leader (DCL) until his termination in April 2015 amid a company-wide workforce reduction.
- From 2014–2018 Transocean cold-stacked six rigs and reduced its offshore fleet substantially, terminating 7,320 employees; Transocean used a ‘‘high-grading’’ system (performance, ranking, potential averaged) to select employees to retain.
- McMichael’s 2014 appraisal produced a performance score of 71%; his rig manager ranked him last among four toolpushers and gave zero potential, producing a final high-grade score of 52%; rig manager Kennedy did not know McMichael’s age when deciding to fire him.
- Kennedy hired Jody Eckert (age 49) as McMichael’s replacement; Eckert’s overall high-grade score was higher than McMichael’s and was later also laid off in 2016 during continued reductions.
- McMichael sued under the ADEA alleging age discrimination; the district court granted summary judgment for Transocean, concluding RIF was a legitimate reason and McMichael failed to raise a fact issue that Transocean’s reasons were pretextual. The Fifth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Transocean’s stated RIF is legitimate nondiscriminatory reason | McMichael contends RIF rationale masks age discrimination | Transocean: broad RIF amid industry downturn is legitimate reason | Held: RIF is a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason |
| Whether age-related comments show discriminatory motive | McMichael points to a supervisor’s comment about pension/retirement eligibility | Transocean: comment was benign, not from decisionmaker and not reflective of animus | Held: comment is a stray/benign remark, not probative of age bias |
| Whether replacement was clearly less qualified (showing pretext) | McMichael argues replacement was younger and less qualified | Transocean: replacement (Eckert) had equal/higher scores; plaintiff not clearly better qualified | Held: plaintiff failed to show replacement was clearly less qualified |
| Whether deviations from high-grading process show pretext | McMichael cites discrepancies on scoring chart and alleged inconsistent application | Transocean: chart reflected a scrivener error and rapid RIF context; deviations insufficient | Held: mere procedural errors or disagreements do not establish pretext |
Key Cases Cited
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (standards for genuine issue at summary judgment)
- Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (ADEA requires but-for causation)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden-shifting framework for indirect evidence)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (pretext and burden-shifting principles)
- Moss v. BMC Software, Inc., 610 F.3d 917 (clarifying ‘‘clearly better qualified’’ and pretext standards)
- E.E.O.C. v. Texas Instruments Inc., 100 F.3d 1173 (stray remarks and RIF context)
- Bienkowski v. American Airlines, Inc., 851 F.2d 1503 (pretext and burden of persuasion)