Mike Duffy v. Belk, Inc., 477 F. App'x 91

Duffy, age 61, was Director of CRM for Belk, Inc.
Belk eliminated Duffy’s position and consolidated it with Cravens’s, who is ~20 years younger, into a new combined role.
Cravens assumed the consolidated duties and was selected for the new position.
Duffy also claimed Belk failed to assign him to two other positions after his elimination: director of email content and VP of advertising planning and analysis.
Belk argued the elimination was a reduction in force and Cravens was better suited for the consolidated role; district court granted summary judgment for Belk; Fourth Circuit affirmed, applying McDonnell Douglas framework and ADEA standard.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Prima facie case for age discrimination via RIF	Duffy shows replacement by substantially younger Cravens.	Cravens’s selection and consolidation were legitimate business decisions; duties consolidated.	Yes, Duffy established a prima facie case.
Pretext for age discrimination	Belk’s reasons are contrived; Cravens’s credentials and Duffy’s age show pretext.	Reasons were legitimate strategic business decisions supported by Bufano’s consolidation plan.	No, evidence insufficient to show pretext.
Failure to assign to two post-elimination positions	Belk should have offered Duffy either director of email content or VP role.	Hartman’s reassignment to director of email content was to avoid conflict; Curley hired for VP role; Duffy did not apply and is not entitled to reassignment.	No prima facie case or pretext established for these postings.

Mereish v. Walker, 359 F.3d 330 (4th Cir. 2004) (pretext and burden-shifting in ADEA cases)
Reed v. Buckeye Fire Equip., 241 F. App’x 917 (4th Cir. 2007) (transfer of duties to younger workers can satisfy replacement element)
Birkbeck v. Marvel Lighting Corp., 30 F.3d 507 (4th Cir. 1994) (replacement by younger employee not conclusive of bias in RIF)