Young Kim v. Hospira, Incorporated
709 F. App'x 287
5th Cir.2018Background
- Young H. Kim, a 69-year-old Korean-American, worked as a Production Operator at Hospira from 1999 until his termination in 2015 for allegedly failing to detect defective IV fluid bags over several months.
- Kim sued Hospira alleging age discrimination under the ADEA and national-origin discrimination under Title VII.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Hospira, finding Kim failed to establish prima facie cases for either claim.
- On appeal, the Fifth Circuit reviewed the grant of summary judgment de novo and viewed evidence in the light most favorable to Kim.
- The court focused on whether Kim established the fourth element of prima facie discrimination: that similarly situated employees were treated more favorably.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kim established a prima facie ADEA (age) claim | Kim contends he was discharged because of age and asserts he was replaced by a younger worker | Hospira argues Kim produced no evidence he was replaced by someone younger or outside the protected class, nor any comparator evidence | Affirmed summary judgment: Kim failed to show replacement or a similarly situated comparator |
| Whether Kim established a prima facie Title VII (national origin) claim | Kim alleges adverse action motivated by national origin and disparate treatment versus comparators | Hospira maintains Kim provided no evidence of similarly situated employees with comparable violation histories being treated differently | Affirmed summary judgment: Kim did not identify comparators with nearly identical circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (movant may point to absence of evidence to shift burden on summary judgment)
- Machinchick v. PB Power, Inc., 398 F.3d 345 (5th Cir. 2005) (McDonnell Douglas framework for ADEA circumstantial-evidence claims)
- Rachid v. Jack in the Box, Inc., 376 F.3d 305 (5th Cir. 2004) (elements of ADEA prima facie case)
- Lee v. Kan. City S. Ry. Co., 574 F.3d 253 (5th Cir. 2009) (requirement that comparators be nearly identical for disparate-treatment showing)
- Clark v. Am.’s Favorite Chicken Co., 110 F.3d 295 (5th Cir. 1997) (conclusory allegations insufficient to defeat summary judgment)