Solomon Sims, Jr. v. MVM, Inc.
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 1130
| 11th Cir. | 2013Background
- ADEA claim by Solomon Sims, Jr. against MVM, Inc. for termination at age 71 following a RIF on an airport/start-up GEO Group contract.
- Sims held a supervisory role; Perkins (Project Manager) and Davis (Davis’s input) were involved in performance assessments.
- MVM claimed Sims was selected for layoff due to budget-driven RIF; Sims offered a Transportation Officer role he refused.
- District court granted summary judgment for MVM, finding no but-for causation from Sims’ age.
- Court applies McDonnell Douglas framework to evaluate circumstantial discrimination evidence and Staub-related cat’s paw considerations.
- Perkins, as decision-maker, evaluated performance and Sims was at the bottom of the list; nearly all other supervisors recommended Sims for RIF.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sims proved but-for age discrimination to create triable fact | Sims asserts Perkins’ age bias (and possible Davis influence) caused the RIF | MVM’s budget constraints and performance metrics justified the RIF | No; evidence shows legitimate budget-based reasons and weak/insufficient bias inference |
| Whether Davis’s discriminatory animus could be a but-for cause via cat’s paw | Davis’s animus tainted Perkins’s decision | Staub does not lower the but-for standard for ADEA; agency principles do not suffice | Staub does not apply to ADEA cat’s paw causation; even with agency theory, not but-for cause |
| Whether the McDonnell Douglas framework remains appropriate in ADEA cases | Plaintiff relies on pre-Gross framework | Court continues to apply McDonnell Douglas in ADEA cases | McDonnell Douglas framework remains applicable, but ultimate burden remains with plaintiff |
| Whether Sims presented sufficient evidence of pretext or direct discrimination | Evidence suggests bias and pretext in RIF decision | Record shows lack of direct evidence and weak pretext | Insufficient to create triable issue; district court affirmed summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (U.S. 2009) (ADEA requires but-for causation, not mere motivating factor)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (Framework shifting burden of production to employer; ultimate burden on plaintiff)
- Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604 (U.S. 1993) (discrimination must have determinative influence on outcome)
- St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (U.S. 1993) (retains plaintiff's ultimate burden of persuasion; McDonnell Douglas presumption not conclusive)
- Staub v. Proctor Hospital, 131 S. Ct. 1186 (U.S. 2011) (cat’s paw liability discussed; agency principles applied but but-for causation remains key in ADEA)
- Smith v. City of Allentown, 589 F.3d 684 (3d Cir. 2009) (illustrative of ADEA circumstantial-evidence approach)
- Simmons v. Sykes Enters., Inc., 647 F.3d 943 (8th Cir. 2012) (discusses agency principles in ADEA context)
- Shelley v. Geren, 666 F.3d 599 (9th Cir. 2012) (cites cross-circuit application of ADEA framework)
- Gorzynski v. JetBlue Airways Corp., 596 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2010) (reinforces ADEA circumstantial-evidence standard)