438 F. App'x 451
6th Cir.2011Background
- Webb was terminated from ServiceMaster BSC LLC for unsatisfactory performance after reviews and failure to meet productivity goals.
- Webb, age 59, has Parkinson’s disease and received accommodations prior to termination.
- The district court granted summary judgment for ServiceMaster, dismissing both ADEA and THRA claims.
- Webb’s supervisor changes occurred in 2007–2008, culminating in a three-month PIP beginning July 31, 2008.
- After the PIP, Webb was terminated December 2, 2008 and his duties were redistributed; the tax group was later restructured.
- The court held Webb failed to show he met the employer’s legitimate expectations or that he was replaced by a significantly younger worker.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Webb meet the employer's legitimate expectations at termination? | Webb argues prior positive reviews show qualification. | Employer's post-2007 reviews show ongoing deficits; PIP failed to remediate. | No; Webb did not meet legitimate expectations. |
| Was Webb replaced by a significantly younger person? | Webb contends replacement by younger employee occurred. | No exact replacement; duties redistributed; restructuring occurred. | No; no younger replacement existed. |
| Is there pretext for termination under the McDonnell Douglas framework after Gossett? | Proffered nondiscriminatory reasons are pretextual. | Termination reason is legitimate due to unsatisfactory performance. | Gossett does not alter outcome; no pretext shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Fed. Express Corp., 45 F. App'x 421 (6th Cir. 2002) (requires showing employer's legitimate expectations for ADEA claim)
- Barnes v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 48 S.W.3d 698 (Tenn. 2000) (emphasizes legitimate expectations in THRA claim (abrogated on other grounds))
- Cline v. Catholic Diocese of Toledo, 206 F.3d 651 (6th Cir. 2000) (reflection on MBA/with respect to evidence of termination basis)
- Macy v. Hopkins Cnty. Sch. Bd. of Educ., 484 F.3d 357 (6th Cir. 2007) (pretext evidence requires showing bases for discharge actually motivated action)
- Allen v. Highlands Hosp. Corp., 545 F.3d 387 (6th Cir. 2008) (evidence of pretext and motivation standards in discharge cases)
- Grosjean v. FirstEnergy Corp., 349 F.3d 332 (6th Cir. 2003) (defines replacement and non-replacement in discrimination analysis)
- Lilley v. BTM Corp., 958 F.2d 746 (6th Cir. 1992) (distribution of duties does not equal replacement)
- Gossett v. Tractor Supply Co., Inc., 320 S.W.3d 777 (Tenn. 2010) (redefines McDonnell Douglas framework; requires negation of essential element)
- Ladd v. Grand Trunk Western R.R., Inc., 552 F.3d 495 (6th Cir. 2009) (notes pretext framework after Gossett)
- Corrigan v. U.S. Steel Corp., 478 F.3d 718 (6th Cir. 2007) (employee burden for establishing discrimination elements)