Nancy Smith v. N3 Oceanic Inc, 17-1041

Smith worked as a Customer Service Representative at N3 from 2004–2014 and was 70 at termination; management viewed her generally as a good employee but documented recurring unprofessional incidents (e.g., argumentative conduct).
N3 changed its health-benefit premiums to an age-based structure; Smith waived benefits in August 2014 and wrote “cannot afford – discrimination!” on the waiver form; management was aware of the comment.
In September 2014, N3 received a customer complaint about pricing and traced the order to Smith; management believed the customer’s email reflected critical remarks about management consistent with Smith’s prior comments.
Within about a week N3 hired an 18-year-old CSR and terminated Smith; Smith sued under the ADEA for age discrimination and retaliation.
The District Court granted summary judgment for N3; the Third Circuit reviewed de novo, assumed Smith made prima facie cases, and focused on whether N3’s stated reasons were pretextual.
The Court affirmed, finding Smith failed to produce evidence that N3’s nondiscriminatory reasons (customer complaint and documented unprofessional conduct) were unworthy of credence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Age discrimination under the ADEA (McDonnell Douglas prima facie and pretext)	Smith argues termination was age-based; she was over 40 and replaced by a much younger employee, and timing with benefit dispute supports inference	N3 says it fired Smith for a customer complaint and a documented history of unprofessional, argumentative behavior — legitimate non-discriminatory reasons	Court: Smith made a prima facie case but failed to show N3’s reasons were pretextual; summary judgment for N3 affirmed
Retaliation under the ADEA (protected activity + causation + pretext)	Smith contends her waiver comment was an informal protected protest and termination about one month later shows retaliation	N3 again cites the customer complaint and prior conduct as legitimate non-retaliatory reasons for firing	Court: Smith established prima facie retaliation but did not rebut N3’s reasons as false or show retaliation was real motive; summary judgment for N3 affirmed

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (framework for burden-shifting in discrimination cases)
Fuentes v. Perskie, 32 F.3d 759 (standard for proving pretext via weaknesses/inconsistencies in employer’s reasons)
Walton v. Mental Health Ass’n of Se. Pa., 168 F.3d 661 (application of McDonnell Douglas under ADEA)
Potence v. Hazleton Area Sch. Dist., 357 F.3d 366 (elements for prima facie ADEA case)
Willis v. UPMC Children’s Hosp. of Pittsburgh, 808 F.3d 638 (burden-shifting and plaintiff’s rebuttal burden)
Krouse v. Am. Sterilizer Co., 126 F.3d 494 (prima facie elements for retaliation claims)
Daniels v. Sch. Dist. of Phila., 776 F.3d 181 (informal complaints can be protected activity)
Curay-Cramer v. Ursuline Acad. of Wilmington, Del., Inc., 450 F.3d 130 (protected activity includes complaints to management)
NAACP v. City of Phila., 834 F.3d 435 (standard of review for summary judgment)
Chavarriaga v. N.J. Dep’t of Corr., 806 F.3d 210 (applying summary judgment standard on appeal)