Thomas Nash v. Optomec, Inc.
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 3684
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- Nash (54–55) worked as an intern and then a full‑time at‑will lab technician at Optomec; he alleged he was fired because of his age in violation of the MHRA.
- Optomec promoted concerns from supervisors (Lees and Wright) that Nash lacked troubleshooting, critical‑thinking ability, and capacity to grow with the company’s projected needs.
- Nash claimed disparate treatment: younger interns received travel opportunities, higher pay (one), and more favorable treatment; he also alleged a “cold shoulder” and age‑related remarks by Lees.
- Optomec terminated Nash within ~6 months of hiring; company stated he lacked the necessary breadth of skills to meet the position’s evolving demands.
- Administrative agency found no probable cause; Nash sued under the MHRA; the district court granted summary judgment to Optomec and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Nash established a prima facie MHRA/ADEA age‑discrimination claim | Nash contends he was treated less favorably than younger interns and replaced by younger workers | Optomec argues evidence does not show a similarly situated younger permanent replacement or other facts supporting discrimination | Court: Nash failed to establish a prima facie case; temporary redistribution to interns and absence of permanent younger replacement is not probative |
| Whether Optomec’s stated reason (lack of skills/potential) was pretext | Nash argues the shortcomings cited were not job requirements and employer shifted explanations | Optomec maintains consistent rationale: Nash lacked troubleshooting/ability to grow; explanations are elaborations, not a substantial change | Court: Reason is legitimate and consistent; no sufficient evidence of pretext |
| Whether employer’s statements and treatment (favoritism, “young” remark, cold shoulder, spill incident) show age bias | Nash points to travel assignments, pay differences, remarks, and isolated incidents as evidence of age stereotyping | Optomec contends comparators were not similarly situated; remarks were stray or benign workplace criticisms | Court: Remarks and incidents are weak, stray, or not probative; comparators not similarly situated; do not show discriminatory motive |
| Whether rebuttable presumptions undermine Nash’s claim (short tenure between hire and fire; decisionmaker’s similar age) | Nash disputes applicability of federal presumptions to MHRA or argues summary‑judgment crediting of facts is improper | Optomec relies on presumptions that hiring then quick firing and similarly aged decisionmaker weigh against inference of age discrimination | Court: Presumptions apply; undisputed facts (hired and fired within a short period by a near‑same‑age supervisor) undercut inference of age discrimination |
Key Cases Cited
- Tenge v. Phillips Modern Ag Co., 446 F.3d 903 (8th Cir.) (summary judgment review standard)
- Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031 (8th Cir. en banc) (view evidence in plaintiff’s favor on summary judgment)
- Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557 (U.S.) (standard for when record could not lead a rational factfinder to find for plaintiff)
- Lewis v. St. Cloud State Univ., 467 F.3d 1133 (8th Cir.) (replacement by substantially younger employee and inference of discrimination)
- Johnson v. Securitas Sec. Servs. USA, Inc., 769 F.3d 605 (8th Cir. en banc) (shifting explanations must be substantial to infer pretext)
- Bone v. G4S Youth Servs. LLC, 686 F.3d 948 (8th Cir.) (same on employer explanation changes)
- Arraleh v. County of Ramsey, 461 F.3d 967 (8th Cir.) (short time between hire and discharge undermines discrimination inference)
- Rothmeier v. Inv. Advisers, Inc., 85 F.3d 1328 (8th Cir.) (decisionmaker of similar age undercuts inference of age discrimination)
- Tolan v. Cotton, 134 S. Ct. 1861 (U.S.) (courts must not credit one party’s version of disputed facts on summary judgment)