Virginia Lay v. Singing River Health Sys Fdn
694 F. App'x 248
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Lay, hired in 1999 as Singing River’s director of managed care, was about 65 at time of her 2014 separation; her department was moved under clinical integration in 2013.
- Singing River discovered large accounting shortfalls in 2013–2014 and engaged consultants; it reorganized departments and eliminated multiple positions during a financially driven reduction-in-force (RIF).
- Decisionmakers combined portions of Lay’s and her supervisor Morgan’s duties into a new director-of-collaborative-care-network role; Morgan and others participated in the restructuring and Morgan left knowing his job would be affected.
- Lay received communications suggesting retirement, resisted retiring, was told her position would be eliminated and encouraged to apply for other openings, but she applied for few and accepted lower-paying employment after leaving.
- Singing River temporarily assigned Lay’s duties to a younger executive and later hired Jason Rickley, age 32, in the consolidated role; Lay sued under the ADEA claiming age discrimination and “forced” retirement.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Singing River; the Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding Lay failed to raise a genuine dispute that the RIF and restructuring were pretext for age discrimination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lay established pretext for age discrimination in a RIF | Lay says she was effectively replaced by a much younger employee and was forced to retire; argues age/pension status motivated decision | Singing River says elimination was part of broader, financially necessary restructuring; position duties were consolidated, not a one-for-one replacement | Held for defendant — Lay failed to show genuine issue of material fact that age was the reason; restructuring was legitimate non-discriminatory reason |
| Whether discussions about Lay’s retirement amount to targeting employees by pension status | Lay contends pension/retirement status shows age-based targeting | Singing River shows retirement was discussed after elimination decision and as a benefit option; no evidence age was discussed in decisionmaking | Held for defendant — no evidence employer targeted employees by pension status; statements were not probative of discrimination |
| Whether alleged age-related remarks provide circumstantial evidence of discrimination | Lay points to a 2005 remark by CEO (women over 40 shouldn't be managers) and hearsay that "age discrimination happens all the time" | Singing River notes temporal remoteness, the declarants’ lack of decisionmaking authority, hearsay problems, and that comments weren’t shown to relate to Lay’s termination | Held for defendant — remarks were too remote, attenuated, or inadmissible and insufficient to create a genuine factual dispute |
| Whether statistical or comparative evidence of older employees laid off supports discrimination | Lay notes many released employees were over 40 | Singing River notes absence of evidence on overall workforce age distribution or hiring demographics to show statistical significance | Held for defendant — insufficient statistical context to infer discriminatory pattern |
Key Cases Cited
- Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (plaintiff must prove age was the but-for cause of adverse employment action)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (framework for evaluating circumstantial evidence of discrimination and when jury may infer discrimination)
- Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604 (distinguishing pension-based vs. age-based motivations)
- Nichols v. Loral Vought Sys. Corp., 81 F.3d 38 (Fifth Circuit burden-shifting in RIF cases)
- Berquist v. Washington Mutual Bank, 500 F.3d 344 (RIF elimination of positions can be legitimate non-discriminatory reason; plaintiff must raise genuine dispute)
- LeMaire v. Louisiana Dep’t of Transp. & Dev., 480 F.3d 383 (courts do not second-guess business decisions absent evidence of discrimination)
- Rachid v. Jack in the Box, Inc., 376 F.3d 305 (evidentiary standard for showing that discrimination is more likely explanation)
- Reed v. Neopost USA, Inc., 701 F.3d 434 (tests for admissible workplace remarks as circumstantial evidence)
- Brown v. CSC Logic, Inc., 82 F.3d 651 (factors for evaluating whether comments constitute direct evidence of discrimination)