Roberts v. International Business MacHines Corp.
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 22431
| 10th Cir. | 2013Background
- Roberts alleges IBM fired him for age discrimination based on an HR chat about his potential removal in a Resource Action.
- The conversation discussed whether to eliminate his position for billable-work reasons and later to reevaluate if performance declined.
- “Shelf life” in the chat is argued by Roberts as age-related but is interpreted as Roberts’s workload by the court.
- IBM used a Resource Action to eliminate positions not cost-justified; Roberts remained employed after initial discussion.
- Court applies McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting and treats any direct evidence as insufficient; pretext analysis hinges on consistency of performance evaluations and comparator evidence.
- District court granted summary judgment for IBM and the court affirms, ruling no direct or pretextual evidence of age discrimination and no viable state-law claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether shelf life constitutes direct evidence of age discrimination | Roberts argues shelf life signals age bias | IBM contends shelf life reflects workload, not age | No direct evidence; shelf life is probative of workload only |
| Whether Project Blue is direct evidence of discrimination | Roberts argues color-name implies age bias | Color reference inconclusive and not tied to age | Not direct evidence of age discrimination |
| Whether circumstantial evidence supports a prima facie ADEA claim and pretext | Roberts asserts inconsistent performance signals show pretext | IBM honestly assessed changing performance | No pretext; performance fluctuations alone do not prove pretext |
| Whether Oklahoma Burk claims are preempted or unsupported | Roberts seeks Burk claims for age-based firing and retaliation | No significant motivating factor shown; retaliation not established | Burk claims fail; no factors showing significant causation or retaliation satisfied |
| Whether Oklahoma public policy/intentional infliction of emotional distress claims survive | Roberts seeks alternative state-law accountability | Record fails to show outrageous conduct as required | Claims fail; district court properly granted summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Tabor v. Hilti, Inc., 703 F.3d 1206 (10th Cir. 2013) (direct evidence threshold; ambiguous statements must be plausibly viewed as discriminatory or benign)
- Riggs v. AirTran Airways, Inc., 497 F.3d 1108 (10th Cir. 2007) (circumstantial evidence and pretext framework)
- Billet v. CIGNA Corp., 940 F.2d 812 (3rd Cir. 1991) (pretext must rely on implausible or inconsistent reasoning by employer)
- St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (U.S. 1993) (pretext framework clarified after McDonnell Douglas)
- Young v. Dillon Cos., Inc., 468 F.3d 1243 (10th Cir. 2006) (changed performance evaluations must be evidence of pretext)