Sharilyn Haggenmiller v. ABM Parking Services, Inc.
837 F.3d 879
8th Cir.2016Background
- Sharilyn Haggenmiller, 63, worked for ABM at Minneapolis–St. Paul Airport in an administrative assistant/auditor role; automation reduced many job duties.
- Independent auditor Lumin recommended eliminating the administrative assistant/auditor and payroll positions and creating roving shift manager positions; MAC (the airport authority) directed ABM to implement Lumin’s recommendations.
- ABM’s interim general manager submitted and obtained approval to eliminate Haggenmiller’s position effective May 31, 2013; Haggenmiller and the other oldest office employee (64-year-old Martinson) were terminated.
- Haggenmiller claimed age discrimination under the Minnesota Human Rights Act; ABM removed the case to federal court and moved for summary judgment, which the district court granted.
- On appeal, Haggenmiller conceded ABM’s proffered reason (Lumin audit and MAC direction) but argued ABM’s actions were pretextual — pointing to allegedly available positions, the hire of a much younger shift manager, and certain remarks by supervisors.
- The Eighth Circuit affirmed summary judgment, concluding Haggenmiller failed to present sufficient evidence that ABM’s legitimate business reason was pretext for age discrimination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ABM’s stated reason (elimination per Lumin/MAC) was pretext for age discrimination | Haggenmiller contends the lack of good-faith job-search/transfer consideration and false statements about available positions show pretext | ABM says MAC required elimination; ABM followed directives and searched for potential openings but none appropriate existed | Held for ABM — plaintiff failed to raise a genuine fact issue of pretext |
| Whether ABM was required to transfer or place Haggenmiller in another ABM position | Haggenmiller argues ABM could have placed her in other open positions (e.g., entry-level HR) but did not, evidencing pretext | ABM contends it had no obligation to transfer and reasonably searched but had no suitable openings | Held for ABM — no duty to transfer; alleged open positions insufficient to show pretext |
| Whether supervisors’ statements and disparate treatment support an inference of age bias | Plaintiff cites supervisor Sandeberg’s comment about terminating the two oldest employees and Frankhauser’s remark to Martinson about retirement | ABM characterizes such comments as non-discriminatory or benign and not probative of intent | Held for ABM — remarks were not probative enough to create a genuine issue of age discrimination |
| Whether the district court misapplied the summary judgment standard | Haggenmiller asserts the court failed to draw all reasonable inferences in her favor and improperly weighed evidence | ABM defends the court’s application of summary judgment principles and reliance on the record | Held for ABM — appellate court finds district court properly applied the standard and viewed evidence in plaintiff’s favor but found insufficient proof of pretext |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (framework for burden-shifting in discrimination cases)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (falsity of employer’s explanation may permit inference of discrimination)
- Ramlet v. E.F. Johnson Co., 507 F.3d 1149 (ADEA and Minnesota Human Rights Act claims analyzed similarly)
- Doucette v. Morrison County, 763 F.3d 978 (elements of prima facie case in age-discrimination/RIF context)
- Reynolds v. RehabCare Group E., Inc., 591 F.3d 1030 (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment requires affirmative evidence to create genuine dispute)
- Bashara v. Black Hills Corp., 26 F.3d 820 (benign or litigation-conscious remarks generally not probative of discrimination)