Pate v. Metokote Corporation, 3:11-cv-00209

Pate applied for work with Adecco on July 21, 2009 and was placed as a temporary unloader at MetoKote on August 4, 2009.
MetoKote managers considered which temporary workers could be hired full-time using criteria including hours, attendance, performance, and interest; Pate was excluded as not interested in full-time work.
In early 2011, Pate suspected age discrimination after a younger employee was offered full-time work; he questioned age of new hires and reviewed MetoKote communications showing younger hires.
On January 17, 2011, Pate informed Adecco supervisor Maurer of his concerns; Maurer and Saylor began an investigation into the allegations.
Pate texted that he planned to resign; Adecco released him and replaced him with an older temporary worker; Pate later disputed that he resigned and sought to return to work.
Pate sued MetoKote and Adecco alleging age discrimination, retaliation, and uniformed service discrimination; the court granted summary judgment for Adecco on all claims after settlement of claims against MetoKote.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
ADEA age-discrimination prima facie	Pate says the 40+ employee was not hired full-time due to age.	Pate never applied for a full-time position; no prima facie case.	Prima facie burden not met; summary judgment for Adecco on age claims.
Retaliation under ADEA and Ohio law	Adecco retaliated for Pate’s concerns about age discrimination by not reassigning him.	No adverse action tied to protected activity; no retaliation proved.	No prima facie retaliation; summary judgment for Adecco on retaliation claims.
USERRA uniformed service discrimination	MetoKote’s actions and the no-trespass order were motivated by military status.	No adverse employment action linked to military service; Adecco not liable for MetoKote's actions.	No adverse action or causation; summary judgment for Adecco on USERRA claims.
Motion to strike Bihn declaration	Second Declaration should be struck as untimely/impertinent.	Declaration relevant and timely; discovery issues do not justify striking.	Denied

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard; material facts must be disputed)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (burden-shifting framework for summary judgment)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (U.S. 1986) (court must view evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant)
Geiger v. Tower Auto., 579 F.3d 614 (6th Cir. 2009) (direct vs. circumstantial evidence in ADEA; McDonnell Douglas framework)
O’Connor v. Consolidated Coin Caterers Corp., 517 U.S. 308 (U.S. 1996) (prima facie elements for discrimination claims; hiring context)
Spengler v. Worthington Cylinders, 615 F.3d 481 (6th Cir. 2010) (McDonnell Douglas framework for retaliation claims)
Hance v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 571 F.3d 511 (6th Cir. 2009) (burden of proof in USERRA/discrimination analyses)
Smith v. City of Salem, 378 F.3d 566 (6th Cir. 2004) (defining adverse employment action for USERRA)