959 F.3d 423
1st Cir.2020Background
- Zabala was hired by Sanofi Puerto Rico in 1997 (age 39) and rose to Senior Marketing Manager overseeing major cardiovascular products.
- After key cardiovascular drugs lost patent protection, Zabala was reassigned (Specialty unit) while diabetes products grew to ~80% of company sales by 2013.
- General Manager David Freeman proposed consolidating the Specialty and Diabetes units, creating one Director and one Senior Marketing Manager; Freeman recommended retaining Brenda Bonet (diabetes experience) over Zabala.
- Bonet (age 44) had improving performance ratings (4→8→8→5 mid‑2013); Zabala (age 55) had declining ratings (7→5→1→4 mid‑2013). Freeman and HR (Adriana Bury) agreed to select Bonet based on diabetes expertise and recent performance; Zabala was terminated.
- Zabala sued under the ADEA. The district court granted summary judgment for Sanofi; Zabala appealed. The First Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prima facie showing under ADEA | Zabala argued he met the prima facie elements (40+, met expectations, adverse action, younger retained) | Sanofi did not meaningfully contest prima facie | Court: Zabala satisfied prima facie. |
| Legitimate nondiscriminatory reason | Zabala: employer manufactured criteria post‑hoc to justify choosing younger Bonet | Sanofi: consolidation warranted by business needs; Bonet had diabetes expertise and stronger recent reviews | Court: Sanofi articulated a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason. |
| Pretext (selection criteria and chronology; ages in write‑up) | Zabala: criteria were chosen after decision; inclusion of ages and chronology shows age bias/ sham criteria | Sanofi: criteria were job‑related; no evidence criteria were a sham or that reviews were rigged | Court: No genuine dispute of material fact on pretext; isolated age references and chronology insufficient. |
| Company‑wide pattern and alternative position | Zabala: pointed to other hires favoring younger workers and that he wasn’t offered Business Intelligence Manager | Sanofi: no evidence those comparators were similarly situated; BI manager was posted and Zabala did not apply; hiring demographics not shown to diverge from applicant pool | Court: Pattern evidence and failure‑to‑offer claim insufficient to show discriminatory motive. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (employee must prove but‑for causation under ADEA)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden‑shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Robinson v. Town of Marshfield, 950 F.3d 21 (applying McDonnell Douglas at summary judgment)
- Del Valle‑Santana v. Servicios Legales de P.R., Inc., 804 F.3d 127 (prima facie elements under ADEA)
- Mesnick v. Gen. Elec. Co., 950 F.2d 816 (employer's burden to articulate nondiscriminatory reason)
- Gómez–González v. Rural Opportunities, Inc., 626 F.3d 654 (plaintiff must show pretext and discriminatory motive)
- Lehman v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 74 F.3d 323 (isolated/ambiguous remarks insufficient to prove discriminatory intent)
- Bennett v. Saint‑Gobain Corp., 507 F.3d 23 (cannot rely on bald assertions or unsupported conclusions to show discriminatory pattern)