982 F.3d 386
5th Cir.2020Background
- Rosemary Salazar worked at University Medical Center (UMC) for 27 years as a respiratory therapist and then adult respiratory educator; she was terminated March 13, 2017 at age 57.
- UMC contended her performance declined in 2016 (communication failures, disorganization, scheduling confusion) and documented problems and directives to improve.
- Salazar denied prior counseling, pointed to merit raises (notably a 2016 raise for 2015 performance), and alleged several other older employees were fired and replaced by younger, lower‑paid therapists.
- Salazar sued under the ADEA; the parties agreed she established a prima facie case and that UMC offered legitimate, non‑discriminatory reasons for discharge, so the district court considered only whether those reasons were pretextual at summary judgment.
- The district court granted summary judgment for UMC; the Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding Salazar failed to raise a genuine dispute that UMC’s stated reasons were pretext for age discrimination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether UMC's stated reasons for termination were pretext for age discrimination | Salazar: she performed adequately; received merit raises; older coworkers were also fired; UMC deviated from discipline policy | UMC: documented performance deficiencies, supporting evaluations, discretion to bypass progressive discipline, no evidence of ageist remarks or corroborated firings | No — plaintiff failed to show genuine dispute that reasons were pretext; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether Salazar’s self‑statements about satisfactory performance create a triable issue | Salazar: her own declarations that she performed well | UMC: self‑serving/conclusory assertions insufficient without corroboration | No — conclusory self‑assessments do not create material fact issue |
| Whether prior merit raises undermine employer's claim of poor performance | Salazar: merit raises (2016 raise for 2015) show satisfactory work | UMC: raises predate alleged decline; evaluation containing raise also documented deficiencies | No — prior good reviews alone do not prove later evaluations are pretextual |
| Whether failure to follow progressive‑discipline policy raises inference of pretext | Salazar: UMC did not follow its written progressive discipline, suggesting pretext | UMC: policy allows managerial discretion to impose appropriate discipline; also submitted evaluations and surveys | No — deviation given explicit discretionary language and lack of corroborating evidence is insufficient to show pretext |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (establishes burden‑shifting framework)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (plaintiff must show employer's reason is false and discrimination was real reason)
- Texas Dep’t of Cmty. Affs. v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (employer bears burden to articulate nondiscriminatory reason)
- Saint Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (pretext requires both falsity and discriminatory intent)
- Machinchick v. PB Power, Inc., 398 F.3d 345 (Fifth Circuit on McDonnell Douglas application)
- Jackson v. Cal‑Western Packaging Corp., 602 F.3d 374 (ADEA but‑for causation and pretext discussion)
- Sandstad v. CB Richard Ellis, Inc., 309 F.3d 893 (circumstantial evidence and McDonnell Douglas in Fifth Circuit)
- Goudeau v. National Oilwell Varco, L.P., 793 F.3d 470 (failure to follow warnings plus ageist comments can support inference of pretext)
- Ross v. Univ. of Texas at San Antonio, 139 F.3d 521 (generalized assertions insufficient to rebut employer's reason)
- BMG Music v. Martinez, 74 F.3d 87 (conclusory, self‑serving statements insufficient to create fact issue)