Michael Caserta v. Intercall Inc
671 F. App'x 33
3rd Cir.2016Background
- Caserta was hired by InterCall as Vice President of Sales in December 2011 at age 61 and was terminated in May 2013 at age 63.
- InterCall cited three nondiscriminatory reasons for termination: poor 2012 sales performance, restructuring of its pharmaceutical sales team, and elimination of Caserta’s position to create budget space to hire for Vice President of Product Management.
- Caserta sued under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD), alleging age discrimination and replacement by a younger person.
- The District Court granted summary judgment for InterCall, finding InterCall met its burden to articulate legitimate reasons and Caserta failed to show those reasons were pretextual.
- Caserta appealed, arguing the District Court erred in applying McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting and in not shifting the burden back to InterCall after he established a prima facie case.
- The Third Circuit reviewed the grant of summary judgment de novo and affirmed, concluding Caserta produced no evidence that InterCall’s reasons were pretext for age discrimination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Caserta established age discrimination under NJLAD | Caserta argued he made a prima facie case and the burden should shift back to InterCall to rebut a presumption of discrimination | InterCall argued it articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons (low sales, restructuring, position elimination) | Court held Caserta met prima facie but failed to show InterCall’s reasons were pretextual; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether InterCall’s articulated reasons were pretext for age bias | Caserta contended the reasons were a pretext to disguise age discrimination | InterCall maintained documentary and factual support for its performance and restructuring reasons | Court held Caserta presented no evidence to disbelieve or infer discriminatory motive; reasons not shown to be pretext |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (framework for burden-shifting in discrimination cases)
- Fuentes v. Perskie, 32 F.3d 759 (3d Cir. 1994) (standards for proving pretext under McDonnell Douglas)
- Keller v. Orix Credit Alliance, Inc., 130 F.3d 1101 (3d Cir. 1997) (application of Fuentes and NJ law on pretext)
- Andersen v. Exxon Co., U.S.A., 446 A.2d 486 (N.J. 1982) (employee’s burden to show employer’s stated reason is pretext)
- Maiorino v. Schering-Plough Corp., 695 A.2d 353 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1997) (elements of prima facie age-discrimination claim under NJLAD)
- Catalane v. Gilian Instrument Corp., 638 A.2d 1341 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1994) (same)
- Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 316 F.3d 431 (3d Cir. 2003) (standard of review for summary judgment)