William Schechner v. Kpix-Tv
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 10766
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- Schechner and Lobertini were longtime KPIX-TV reporters who were laid off as part of a CBS-mandated 10% budget cut; performance issues were not alleged as causes.
- KPIX management determined layoff order largely by contract expiration dates for general assignment reporters, while anchors were kept if possible.
- The layoffs affected older employees (Schechner 66, Lobertini 47) and included other on-air staff; plaintiffs relied on age statistics to show discrimination.
- KPIX offered non-discriminatory reasons: anchors would be kept as the ‘face’ of the station, and layoffs targeted reporters with expiring contracts within the general assignment pool.
- Experts for both sides presented competing views: Lepowsky concluded statistically significant age disparities; Siskin argued the analysis failed to account for non-discriminatory decision factors.
- The district court granted summary judgment for KPIX on the disparate treatment claim; the Ninth Circuit affirmed, clarifying the use of statistical evidence in prima facie showings and pretext analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statistical evidence can establish a prima facie case without accounting for non-discriminatory reasons. | Schechner and Lobertini rely onStats to show a stark age pattern. | KPIX argues statistics must account for legitimate reasons to survive. | Statistical evidence can establish a prima facie case without linking to nondiscriminatory reasons. |
| Whether plaintiffs showed pretext for age discrimination after reframing the McDonnell Douglas analysis. | Plaintiffs contend reasons are pretextual based on retirement-like decisions. | KPIX argues its reasons were non-discriminatory and supported by record. | No pretext established; record supports legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons. |
| Whether the same-actor inference undermines the likelihood of pretext. | Same-actor conduct between hiring and firing could show discrimination. | Same-actor inference favors non-discriminatory explanation. | Same-actor inference supports lack of pretext; does not prove discrimination. |
Key Cases Cited
- Diaz v. Eagle Produce Ltd. P'ship, 521 F.3d 1201 (9th Cir. 2008) (prima facie burden minimal on summary judgment; statistics used with other evidence)
- Wallis v. J.R. Simplot Co., 26 F.3d 885 (9th Cir. 1994) (minimal proof required at prima facie stage; not preponderance)
- Palmer v. United States, 794 F.2d 534 (9th Cir. 1986) (statistical evidence may show discrimination; must be stark)
- Rose v. Wells Fargo & Co., 902 F.2d 1417 (9th Cir. 1990) (statistics may be explained by non-discriminatory causes)
- Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271 (9th Cir. 2000) (statistical evidence sometimes weak when other variables ignored)
- Bradley v. Harcourt, Brace & Co., 104 F.3d 267 (9th Cir. 1996) (same-actor inference applicable to hiring/piring actions)
- Coghlan v. Am. Seafoods Co., 413 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2005) (same-actor inference considerations on summary judgment)