305 F. Supp. 3d 423
E.D.N.Y2018Background
- Testa (then 52–53) was hired by CareFusion in Feb 2013 as Regional Sales Manager after prior work at Cardinal Health; he reported to Matthew Stuckert.
- After a July 2013 restructuring, Testa assumed vascular-region responsibilities; his role required analytics, sales tracking (SFDC), team calls, field visits, and Premier contract renewals.
- Testa received a middling performance evaluation in August 2013 and allegedly heard comments about changing job skills and "your era"; he admitted weaknesses with the analytical parts of the role.
- After continued performance problems, a Performance Improvement Memorandum (PIM) was issued on November 8, 2013 listing specific remediation steps; Testa failed to meet them and was terminated on December 13, 2013.
- Testa sued under the ADEA (age discrimination) and NY Labor Law § 191(3); CareFusion moved for summary judgment and to preclude late evidence.
- The district court granted summary judgment on the ADEA claim (finding no reasonable jury could infer age was the but-for cause), declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state claim (dismissed without prejudice), and denied the evidentiary motion as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Testa can prove ADEA disparate-treatment (age was the but-for cause of termination) | Testa: replaced by younger manager, supervisor made age-related comments, termination motivated by desire to pay less | CareFusion: articulated legitimate nondiscriminatory reason — persistent poor performance documented and remedial steps taken | Court: Granted summary judgment to CareFusion; no reasonable jury could find age was the but-for cause |
| Whether stray comments by supervisor create inference of age discrimination | Testa: remarks about "era" and "skills of a younger sales manager" show discriminatory intent | CareFusion: comments are stray, denied by supervisor, made months before termination and contextualized by performance critique | Held: Stray remarks insufficient to show discriminatory intent in light of the record |
| Whether hiring-then-firing undermines CareFusion's motive | Testa: rapid termination suggests pretext | CareFusion: same-actor hire and fire within short period weakens discrimination inference; decisionmakers were also over 40 | Held: Hiring by same decisionmaker and short tenure undermines inference of age bias |
| Whether federal claim disposed; should court retain supplemental jurisdiction over NY Labor Law claim | Testa: sought to pursue both claims in federal court | CareFusion: federal claim fails; supplemental jurisdiction should be declined | Held: Court dismissed federal claim and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state claim (dismissed without prejudice) |
Key Cases Cited
- Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (Sup. Ct. 2009) (ADEA requires age be the but‑for cause)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (Sup. Ct. 1973) (burden‑shifting framework for discrimination cases)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods. Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (Sup. Ct. 2000) (employer articulation of nondiscriminatory reason and plaintiff's burden to show pretext)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (Sup. Ct. 1986) (summary judgment standard; genuine dispute of material fact)
- Danzer v. Norden Sys., 151 F.3d 50 (2d Cir. 1998) (stray remarks by decisionmaker generally insufficient to prove discrimination)