Victor Chambers v. Sodexo, Incorporated, 510 F. App'x 336

Chambers, an Executive Chef at Sodexo (Alcorn State University) since June 30, 2008, was an exempt management employee with HR authority.
In mid-July, Logan learned Chambers’s age (55) and stated preference for a younger chef, then directed cooks to follow her rather than Chambers.
Over the ensuing months Logan allegedly sabotaged Chambers, including making false HR complaints, ordering excessive food, blocking inventory, and withholding event information.
Prince, after discussions with Logan, fired Chambers on November 5 for alleged deficient performance (food shortages, excess ordering, inventory policy violations, safety issues), despite Chambers contesting the charges.
Chambers filed an EEOC charge alleging age discrimination; the district court granted summary judgment for Sodexo on both age-discrimination and FLSA overtime claims.
The court held there were genuine disputes on the ADEA claim but not on the FLSA claim, and remanded for further proceedings on the ADEA issue.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Chambers raised a genuine dispute of material fact on age discrimination under the ADEA.	Chambers argues Logan’s age bias and Prince’s reliance on Logan indicate age-based discharge.	Sodexo argues the reasons were legitimate, non-discriminatory, and supported; no pretext shown.	Yes; genuine dispute as to age discrimination.
Whether Sodexo’s proffered reasons for firing Chambers were pretext.	Chambers alleges Logan influenced the decision via bias; Prince acted as a cat’s paw.	Reasons were legitimate and not shown to be pretext.	Yes; material facts could support pretext finding (jury could infer bias and pretext).
Whether Chambers is owed overtime under the FLSA given the executive exemption.	Even when purportedly relieved of duties, Chambers supervised and gave orders.	Management duties and authority persisted; evidence shows exemption applies.	No genuine dispute; FLSA overtime claim fails.

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (establishes burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
Patrick v. Ridge, 394 F.3d 311 (5th Cir. 2004) (articulates prima facie elements and pretext standard)
Palasota v. Haggar Clothing Co., 342 F.3d 569 (5th Cir. 2003) (factors for establishing age-based discrimination)
Russell v. McKinney Hosp. Venture, 235 F.3d 219 (5th Cir. 2000) (animus influence can be attributed to decisionmaker)
Laxton v. Gap, Inc., 333 F.3d 572 (5th Cir. 2003) (reasonable jury could find leverage by biased subordinate)
United States ex rel. Jamison v. McKesson Corp., 649 F.3d 322 (5th Cir. 2011) (summary judgment standard; de novo review on appeal)