Tilden Holliday v. Commonwealth Brands, Inc.
483 F. App'x 917
5th Cir.2012Background
- Holliday was hired by CBI in 2001 as a Key Account Manager at age 48.
- Trauth, Holliday's direct supervisor, reported to Miller, who reported to Ebert; an interoffice memo in 2003 proposed reassigning Holliday to Territory Manager.
- In 2003-2004, Holliday's job was reassessed; by 2004 he was promoted to District Manager, while his supervisor remained Trauth.
- In April 2004 Holliday was promoted; he was terminated in April 2008 and replaced by Ozment, who was 42.
- CBI presented a record of ongoing performance problems and multiple disciplinary communications; Holliday alleged Trauth orchestrated a plan to fire him and replace him with a younger employee; Holliday relied on age-related comments by Trauth to support his claim.
- The district court granted summary judgment to CBI; the Fifth Circuit reviews de novo under the ADEA and applies McDonnell Douglas framework when no direct evidence of discrimination is shown.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Holliday showed a prima facie ADEA case. | Holliday contends he remained qualified and was replaced by someone younger. | Holliday failed to prove he was replaced by someone younger or otherwise discharged due to age. | Holliday established prima facie qualification; order affirmed that prima facie shown. |
| Whether CBI's reason for termination was pretextual. | Trauth's age-related remarks indicate discriminatory motive pretext. | No evidence Trauth influenced the termination decision; Whitworth independently decided to terminate for performance. | No pretext proven; Whitworth acted independently; summary judgment affirmed. |
| Whether the cat's paw theory applies to ADEA in this case. | Trauth's remarks could influence decision-makers under cat's paw liability. | Trauth lacked influence over Whitworth, Mancuso, and McIntyre; cat's paw not applicable here. | Cat's paw theory not applicable; no evidence of discriminatory influence; affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gross v. FBL Financial Servs., Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (U.S. 2009) (ADEA requires but-for causation; no mixed-motive theory under ADEA)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (establishes burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (U.S. 1993) (requires proof of pretext plus discriminatory motive)
- Palasota v. Haggar Clothing Co., 342 F.3d 569 (5th Cir. 2003) (cat’s paw liability under ADEA considered)
- Bienkowski v. American Airlines, Inc., 851 F.2d 1503 (5th Cir. 1988) (prima facie case elements and burden shifting)
- Moss v. BMC Software, Inc., 610 F.3d 917 (5th Cir. 2010) (applies McDonnell Douglas framework to ADEA claims)
- Jackson v. Cal-Western Packaging Corp., 602 F.3d 374 (5th Cir. 2010) (defines prima facie successful showing under ADEA)
- Russell v. McKinney Hosp. Venture, 235 F.3d 219 (5th Cir. 2000) (cat’s paw and influence over decision-makers)
- Staub v. Proctor Hospital, 131 S. Ct. 1186 (2011) (discusses cat’s paw liability under USERRA; relevance to ADEA noted)