Provenzano v. LCI Holdings, Inc.
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 24797
| 6th Cir. | 2011Background
- Regina Provenzano, born 1958, worked for LCI since 1997 in the Midwest District, rising to full-time supervisor.
- In 2008, Judy Babcock (age 33) was promoted to assistant manager over Provenzano, who did not apply and was not considered.
- LCI underwent company-wide restructuring in 2007 and 2008, reducing numbers of full-time supervisors, including some under 40.
- Provenzano accepted a downgrade to part-time supervisor and ultimately resigned in November 2008 after reduced hours and pay.
- Provenzano filed ELCRA claim in state court; case removed to federal court and amended to include ADEA claim; district court granted summary judgment for LCI in 2010.
- The district court applied McDonnell Douglas framework and found Provenzano failed to establish pretext; this court reviews de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prima facie case for age-based failure to promote | Provenzano showed similar qualifications to Babcock. | Discriminatory motive not shown; qualifications not sufficiently similar. | Provenzano satisfied prima facie stage; similarities found in qualifications. |
| Pretext for nondiscriminatory reason (ADEA) | Evidence shows pretext exists (education gap, performance, discrimination patterns). | Nondiscriminatory reasons supported by performance record and candidate quality. | No genuine dispute that proffered reasons were pretextual; summary judgment affirmed on ADEA claim. |
| ELCRA claim and pretext | ELCRA pretext shown by age-related discrimination signals and evidence of similar conduct. | ELCRA pretext not shown; reliance on McDonnell Douglas analysis remains valid. | ELCRA claim fails; no substantial evidence of discriminatory animus; summary judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (establishes the three-step burden-shifting framework)
- Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (1981) (requires legitimate nondiscriminatory reason to be shown for pretext inquiry)
- White v. Columbus Metro. Hous. Auth., 429 F.3d 232 (6th Cir. 2005) (prima facie fourth element focuses on similar qualifications, not mere younger status)
- Nguyen v. City of Cleveland, 229 F.3d 559 (6th Cir. 2000) (emphasizes relative qualifications in failure-to-promote cases)
- Ercegovich v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 154 F.3d 344 (6th Cir. 1998) (rejects exact matching of qualifications for similarly-situated comparators)
- Bartlett v. Gates, 421 Fed.Appx. 485 (6th Cir. 2010) (triable issues of pretext when plaintiff much more qualified or other discrimination evidence)
- Hazle v. Ford Motor Co., 464 Mich. 456 (Mich. 2001) (ELCRA framework mirrors McDonnell Douglas approach)
- Lytle v. Malady, 458 Mich. 153 (Mich. 1998) (Michigan adoption of McDonnell Douglas for ELCRA discrimination)