506 F. App'x 604
9th Cir.2013Background
- Brockbank appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to U.S. Bank on ADEA and Title VII claims.
- The district court held there was no direct evidence of age discrimination but found no triable issue on the ADEA prima facie case.
- The court found a triable issue for pretext but concluded the proffered reason was not pretextual.
- The panel reverses in part on the ADEA claim by finding a prima facie case shown and evidence of pretext.
- The district court did not err in dismissing the gender discrimination claim.
- Parties shall bear their own costs; disposition: not for publication.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prima facie ADEA case established? | Brockbank shows she was 40+ and discharged. | U.S. Bank argues no inference of age discrimination under last-element flexibly applied. | Yes, triable issue on last element; prima facie established. |
| Pretext evidence sufficiency? | Evidence shows policy, timing, and ageist comments support pretext. | Policy was applied evenly; charges were misused by Brockbank. | Triable issue on pretext; reversed as to ADEA. |
| Gender discrimination claim viability? | (Not asserted as winning point) | No evidence of gender-based preferential treatment. | Affirmed dismissal of gender claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Diaz v. Eagle Produce, Ltd., 521 F.3d 1201 (9th Cir. 2008) (establishes McDonnell Douglas prima facie framework; minimal burden for pretext)
- Enlow v. Salem-Keizer Yellow Cab Co., 389 F.3d 802 (9th Cir. 2004) (defines direct evidence and context requirements)
- Evanston Ins. Co. v. OEA, Inc., 566 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 2009) (limits weighing of evidence at summary judgment; focus on genuine issue)
- Coghlan v. Am. Seafoods Co. LLC, 413 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2005) (illustrates minimal burden for prima facie case)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (establishes burden-shifting framework)
- Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc., 281 F.3d 1054 (9th Cir. 2002) (emphasizes employer’s honest belief in reasons for actions)
- Coleman v. Donahoe, 667 F.3d 835 (7th Cir. 2012) (criticizes indirect method; proposed collapse of tests into core inquiry)
- Harper v. C.R. Engl., Inc., 687 F.3d 297 (7th Cir. 2012) (discusses alternative discourses on discrimination proof)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard for evidence)