Robert Liebman v. Metroplolitan Life Insurance Company
808 F.3d 1294
| 11th Cir. | 2015Background
- Robert Liebman worked for MetLife from 1985 until his termination in January 2013; he was 49 at termination and alleges loss of pension and retiree medical benefits.
- In his last years he reported to supervisors Larry Adkins and then Gil Cohen; performance criticisms, restructurings, and resource cuts occurred in 2008–2012.
- An outside consultant (Foxen) questioned whether Liebman’s subordinate Neil Weiss (age 42) was the primary driver of the office’s success; Weiss previously reported to Liebman and later assumed Liebman’s duties.
- Cohen (age 45) terminated Liebman after being influenced in part by Adkins (age 44); MetLife cited budgetary savings, duplication of duties with Weiss, and performance concerns.
- Liebman sued under the ADEA and ERISA; the district court granted MetLife summary judgment, finding Liebman failed to show (1) he was replaced by someone under 40 and (2) he was qualified for his position.
- The Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded, holding Liebman established prima facie ADEA and ERISA claims and the district court erred in (a) applying the replacement-by-under-40 rule, (b) discounting Liebman’s qualifications, and (c) resolving admissibility disputes before judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether replacement by someone outside the protected class is required for ADEA prima facie case | Liebman: replacement need only be "substantially younger"; Weiss is 7 years younger | MetLife: Weiss was over 40 so cannot satisfy replacement element | Court: O’Connor controls — replacement need only be substantially younger; 7-year gap satisfies element; district court erred |
| Whether Liebman was qualified for his position (ADEA/ERISA prima facie requirement) | Liebman: long tenure (27 years, ~9 years in equivalent roles), awards, branch performance show qualification | MetLife: poor 2012 performance and duplicative duties show he wasn’t performing as required | Court: Long tenure and objective achievements permit inference of qualification; district court improperly disregarded sworn evidence |
| Whether employer’s proffered reasons were considered at prima facie stage | Liebman: employer reasons are part of burden-shifting, not to defeat prima facie showing | MetLife: pointed to budget and duplication to justify rejecting qualification/prima facie | Court: District court conflated stages; employer reasons are relevant only after prima facie established |
| Whether district court prematurely granted summary judgment without resolving admissibility/contradiction of declarations | Liebman: his and Abdullah’s declarations create fact issues about discriminatory remarks by Adkins | MetLife: declarations contradict deposition testimony and Abdullah was untimely disclosed | Court: District court should have ruled on admissibility/contradiction before granting summary judgment; remand required |
Key Cases Cited
- O’Connor v. Consolidated Coin Caterers Corp., 517 U.S. 308 (1996) (replacement by someone in protected class does not foreclose ADEA claim; focus is on "substantially younger")
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden-shifting framework for circumstantial discrimination evidence)
- Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (2009) (ADEA requires but-for causation)
- Kragor v. Takeda Pharm. Am., Inc., 702 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2012) (elements of prima facie ADEA case and burden-shifting application)
- Damon v. Fleming Supermarkets of Florida, Inc., 196 F.3d 1354 (11th Cir. 1999) (five-year age gap can be "substantially younger"; tenure supports qualification inference)
- Van T. Junkins & Assoc., Inc. v. U.S. Industries, Inc., 736 F.2d 656 (11th Cir. 1984) (affidavit cannot create a sham issue by contradicting clear deposition testimony)
- Feliciano v. City of Miami Beach, 707 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2013) (self-serving sworn statements are not automatically disregarded at summary judgment)