Vanya M. HAGLOF, Appellant, v. NORTHWEST REHABILITATION, INC., a Minnesota Corporation, Appellee

allowing seizure of the warrants “[t]he deputy clerk issued property were merely restated complaints on

based cursory general of the statute

the words clearly that “was a failure

allegations,” putting the seizures

constitutional violation by the law." Id. authorized

beyond those Moreover, court stat- the district 1370. “ stat- it is ‘inconceivable’ ed that per- to seize a government

ute allows ‘the ” in these cases.’ home as son's

1370.

Accordingly, I dissent. HAGLOF, Appellant,

Vanya M. REHABILITATION,

NORTHWEST

INC., corporation, a Minnesota

Appellee.

No. 89-5245. Appeals, States

United

Eighth Circuit. May 1990.

Submitted Aug.

Decided Pinotti, Roseville, Minn., A.

Michael for appellant. Minn., Scott, ap- Eagan,

Thomas M. pellee. LAY, WOLLMAN, Judge,

Before Chief STUART,* Judge, and Circuit Senior Judge. * Iowa, STUART, sitting by designation. District of Sen- C. The HONORABLE WILLIAM Judge the Southern ior United States District bracket; 2) job per- her protected LAY, Judge. Chief 3) satisfactory; she was dis- formance was grant of sum- Haglof appeals Vanya 4) replaced, at least she charged; and was dis- court1 by the district judgment mary younger person who temporarily, with a Age brought under claim missing her or skill. provide the same service would Act, 29 Employment Discrimination Ins. v. General Accident Co. See Clements (ADEA), against U.S.C. §§ Cir.1987). America, F.2d 489 Rehabilita- employer Northwest former her concluded, however, that then The court tion, reverse. Inc. We showing Northwest had BACKGROUND non-discriminatory explana- Northwest years old whеn Haglof was 51 there- termination. The court tion for the filled her temporarily her and terminated ultimately Haglof whether fore addressed 21-year-old president’s position with jury enough evidence for had introduced that the ter- claimed daughter. Northwest that, notwithstanding Northwest’s find to restructuring part of a was minatiоn restructuring, age dis- neutral purportedly Ha- nursing home where workforce in her a substantial factor crimination was restructuring that eliminat- glof worked—a court the evidence found dismissal. it with one replaced position and ed her matter of law. as a insufficient Haglof credentials. higher requiring DISCUSSION however, claimed, that shortly after she filed not occur until did miscon- court district We find Op- Equal Employment complaint with the inference principles governing strued (EEOC) claiming age Commission portunity jury may discriminatory intent intervening month In the discrimination. proof plaintiff’s from president’s daughter, replacement, the her North- higher сredentials. lacked the also re- intended to it had west asserted Supreme has ex Court As terminating immediately upon structure prove to difficult plained, discrimination minute the candi- last at the Haglof, but Postal evidence. States by direct United unavailable, and her became replace datе Aikens, Bd. Governors Serv. suit- another with to find a month it took 1478, 1482, 711, 716, responded that Haglof credentials. ‍​​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​‍able is al (1983). plaintiff therefore produce any evi- was Northwest unable inference of dis from an to benefit lowed prior of this prove the existence dence was simply upon proof that she crimination copy candidate, including her name or age category, she was Haglof also asserted application. her and she job, in her adequately performing shifting of merely a restructuring was per younger replaced by a and was fired on the staff’s practical effect with no labels Thе Su credentials. with no better son nursing home.2 duties at the size or reasoning be explained the preme Court Constr. inference Furnco hind this Ha- initially held that court district 567, 577, 98 S.Ct. Waters, 438 U.S. Corp. v. glof had established (1978): L.Ed.2d 1) she was age discrimination because therapist, assist- one full-time part-time and one ant, Murphy, United E. Diana Hоnorable 1. The part-time aide. full-time and one the District of Minneso- one and States restructur- Haglof the full-time aide. The ta. therapist position, part-time ing eliminated employs nursing three levels home 2. The position Haglofs changed aide full-time and staff, requiring therapy each different physical аcknowledges Haglof assistant. into a full-time physical registered thera- of education. A level pist patient charts while can write that assistants college degree four-year (therapist) has a cannot; however, changing argues her aides physical thera- A state. is licensed and practical level had no job assistant to the aide degree (assistant) two-year has a pist assistant practice for aides to past effect because (aide) therapy aide A license. assistants patient “ghost charts write” degree. the re- post-high Before school need structuring sign. emрloyed one full-time Northwest Inc., Indus., under A facie case McDonnell MacDissi Valmont (8th Cir.1988); an inference of discrimi- F.2d see also Douglas raises presume Spencer Gifts, these Chipollini because we nation (en banc) acts, unexplained, (3d Cir.) (merely discrediting more are otherwise likely employer’s nоt based on the consideration sufficient for than discrimination), denied, impermissible factors. And we are find cert. presume largely this because 97 L.Ed.2d 815 willing to U.S. S.Ct. Indus., Inc., experience from our that more we know Dace ACF Cir.1983) (same). people act in a often than not do not manner, any totally arbitrary without un- Moreover, in order to discredit reasons, especially in a derlying business explanation plaintiff need employer’s Thus, setting. legitimate when all rea- beyond produce additional evidence employee [firing within sons in As the Su age group] have been eliminat- protected Burdine, preme wrote in employer’s possible reasons for the ed satisfactory explanation by A the defen- actions, likely than not the it is more in- destroys legally mandatory dant employer, generally assume acts who we arising ference of discrimination from reason, only based his decision with some None- plaintiff’s initial evidence. impermissible on an consideration. * * * theless, may this evidence be con- employer When the comes forward sidered the trier of fact on the issue nondiscriminatory reason for the with a the defendant’s is of whether dismissal, plaintiff has the plaintiffs Indeed, pretextual. may there be some proffered that the burden “to demonstrate plaintiff’s initial evi- cases where the true reason for the reason was not dence, effective cross-ex- combined with Dep’t employment decision.” Texas defendant, of the amination will suffice Burdine, Community explanation. Affairs discredit the defendant’s 1089, 1095, 248, 256, 101 at 255 n. 101 S.Ct. at 1095 n. (1981). “may in plaintiff succeed language in 10. We referred to this Mul directly by persuading the court this either Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 728 F.2d drew v. discriminatory likely that a reason more (8th Cir.1984), wrote, where we employer indirectly by or motivated court, persuading the “[i]n employer’s proffered ex showing that the may rely solely presented on the evidence it ” planation unworthy credence. establishing in facie case or it added). (emphasis may introduce additional evidence.” Thus, produce need not Indus., Again, in Hillebrand v. M-Tron discriminatory intent direct (8th Cir.1987), Inc., 827 F.2d employer’s proffered even to discredit the

explanation. Her evidence need show (1989), stated, plain “the we category perform protected in the she was proof may well convince the factfind tiff’s satisfactorily she was fired and ing when employer’s pretextu er ‍​​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​‍that the reason was younger person having no replaced by a plaintiff’s prima рroof al and that the credentials, employer’s and that the better sustained the case.” also Bethea v. actions, any, explanation for its is not Co., 827 F.2d 355 Levi Strauss & proof suffices on the last credible. Indirect Cir.1987)(although presented ev because, case plaintiff’s element of necessary idence was fired due to force, properly reduction in case was sub a matter of both common sense and [a]s plain law, employer’s jury of mitted to based on evidence federal submission - firing facie case that had explanation for tiff’s a discredited employ for his received honors аnd awards protected class is itself evi- member employer might not persuade performance, ment the finder of dence which objective policy dismissing unlawful discrimination have followed that such him). reason we cautioned in Hil- For this actually occurred. bracket; (2) job her age judgments “[s]ummary lebrаnd (3) she was satisfactory; alleging performance be used seldom should replaced by a she was discharged; and discrimination.”3 credentials. person of no better younger without can be satisfied elements These Haglof introduced present In tending to rebut the defen- any evidence pri- her evidеnce, set forth in beyond that non-discrim- aof dant’s evidence case, sufficient ma facie employment dé- inatory explanation She restructuring was a sham. evidence intro- agree that I cision. not under- suggested the it facie case —if duced establish com- filed her EEOC after taken until prof- employers discrimination, also to show and she tends charging plaint be credible —could are not pro- not fered reasons could that Northwest pointed out be summary judgment would it had a such that even that to show evidence duce would not be plaintiff Ha- and inappropriate before the contеmplated Furthermore, evidence present she additional required to complaint. glof’s EEOC But, I not do believe jury question. could raise a evidence presented prac- plaintiff has established restructuring had fact that the to show .that nursing itself is suffi- in and at the facie case of prima the workforce effect on tical granting of a motion the foreclose cient to home. this I judgment. believe summary for leads above, if this As discussed the benefit so state for opinion should explanation Northwest’s jury to doubt the and bar. the trial bench then jury could restructuring, the of its impermissible harbored have infer Northwеst Eleventh Circuits First and The Ha- remaining evidence —that of a motive. cases that establishment in ADEA held bracket, person in glof, not itself entitle prima facie case president’s by the replaced summary and fired for a motion survive conclude Co., jury to the lead Rubber daughter v. Mohawk judgment. Hebert —could tеrmi- Haglof’s for real reason Young Cir.1989); the 1104, (1st 1111 F.2d 872 nep- or age discrimination 825, either nation was Corp., 840 F.2d 828- Foods v. General course, grounds is not Nepotism, of denied, otism. Cir.1988), cert. (11th 29 However, ADEA. under the recovery for 782, L.Ed.2d 774 1004, 102 is a motivations possible sorting these Inc., 1525, out Techsouth, F.2d 833 v. Rollins a court. not for jury and matter for Reynоlds v. Cir.1987); Grigsby (11th 1529 (11th 590, Cir. Co., 595 F.2d Metals 821 Reversed. 12, (1st Look, F.2d 15 v. Dea 1987); 810 Judge, Trust STUART, Bd. v. District Senior Palmer Cir.1987); College, specially. 748 concurring Petersburg Junior St. ees of v. Cir.1984); Pace (11th 595, 599 F.2d spe- concur result but agree with I 1383, F.2d 1391 System, 701 Ry. Southern read may be written opinion as cially. The 1018, denied, Cir.1983), cert. (11th to stand lawyers by judges (1984). The 549, 724 L.Ed.2d 78 S.Ct. 104 proposition issue present also must рlain- where the inappropriate is materia] nature the pretextual as to case discrimination in an tiff by the defendant offered any reasons I not be- do facie prima presents See Jalil its actions. be, law. As is, or should lieve this Cir.1989), (3rd Corp., 873 F.2d facie Avdel prima states, to establish majority — U.S.-, denied, 110 S.Ct. rt. only show case, need ce cor- court here was plan. district objective prima facie found a the district court Because 3. because, “[i]n finding a Holley in opinion rect case, our need not discuss we case, Cir.1985), proving a (8th Inc., Mfg., F.2d 1161 Sanyo 771 part of his case reason adopt as required to requirements aof which addressed Hillebrand, at 827 F.2d employer.” given large-scale reduc- of a context facie case facially pursuant ato undertaken tion force 496 VII); employer or He (1990) (Title likely motivated the

725, 745 707; bert, Dister v. Continen employer’s proffered explanation is unwor- 872 F.2d 1108, (2nd credence, F.2d Group, tal thy defendant would be enti- Cir.1988) (ERISA); Young, 840 F.2d 829; summary judgment unless addi- tled to a Co., 772 F.2d 1372, Tea Box v. A & P tional evidence is rebut 1010, Cir.1985), (7th proffered reasons. (1986) (Title plaintiff presents genuine is Where Mortgage Nat’l v. Federal VII); Parker material fact as to the sues of both ‍​​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​‍Cir.1984); Ass’n, 979-80 741 F.2d pretext, sum facie case elements and Motorola, Inc., 703 F.2d Steckl appropriate. mary judgment is not Pace, Cir.1983); F.2d at 1391. See, Hebert, Jalil, e.g., 873 F.2d at 707. case” “not “prima facie phrase (summary judgment 872 F.2d at 1113-16 legally may the establishment denote v. First Fed. Sav. & reversed); Montana presumption, but mandatory, rebuttable Rochester, (2nd Loan of 869 F.2d by courts to describe used also be Man Cir.1989) (same); Ramseur v. Chase enough evi producing plaintiffs burden Bank, (2nd hattan 466-67 trier of fact to infer permit dence to VII); v. West Cir.1989) (same) (Title White Dept. Community Texas fact at issue.” (3rd Co., inghouse Elec. Burdine, 248, 7, n. v. 450 U.S. 254 Affairs WLS-TV, v. Cir.1988) (same); 846 Oxman 207, 7, 1089, 67 L.Ed.2d 1094 n. 101 S.Ct. (7th Cir.1988) (same); Perez 448, F.2d 456 context, (1981). In the Title VII n. 7 216 Curcio, 841 F.2d 255, v. 257-58 Cir. Id. in the former sense. phrase the is used Rollins, 1988) (same); F.2d at 1529 833 meaning in ADEA the It has the same Gifts, (same); Chipollini Spencer v. Thus, defendant thе rebuts context. where (3rd Cir.), cert. de 893, 898-900 by plaintiffs presumption created nied, 1052, 26, 108 S.Ct. non-dis prima facie case with (1987) (same). Conversely, employment de criminatory reason presents genuine issues where the cision, must demonstrate that facie of material fact true reason. given was not the the reаson pretext, sum case elements and not as to 1095, 256, at at 67 L.Ed.2d Id. at 101 S.Ct. Jalil, See mary judgment appropriate. part introduced as of 217. The evidence Fowle, See, e.g., at 707. 868 F.2d 873 F.2d considered. prima facie case is to be 67; Dister, 1115-17; Oliver at at 859 F.2d 10, 10, at 1095 n. Id. at 255 n. 101 S.Ct. 103, Equip. Corp., 846 F.2d Digital v. n. 10. L.Ed.2d at 216 VII); Young, 840 F.2d (1st Cir.1988) (Title portion of footnote majority quotes a The Corp., Sorosky Burroughs v. 829-30; “there be some 10 which states: 794, (9th Cir.1987) (apply 826 F.2d 803-04 evidence, com- plaintiffs initial where the law); Grigsby, 821 F.2d at ing California cross-examination of with effective bined 595-96; Dea, (merely 810 F.2d at 15-16 defendant, suffice to discredit will making out facie case does not This dictum explanatiоn.” defendant’s [plaintiff] automatically save from sum any to foreclose sum- interpreted could be motion); Box, mary, judgment 772 F.2d at there would be mary judgments because Dacon, 1378-80; Meiri v. 759 F.2d if a sum- opportunity for cross-examination (2nd Cir.), 997-98 However, granted. judgment were mary (1985) (Title 91, 88 L.Ed.2d 74 10 is read in rela- the entire footnote when 599; Parker, VII); Palmer, ‍​​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​‍ 748 F.2d at opinion tionship paragraph Steckl, 393; 979; 741 F.2d at 10, it is clear that the containing footnote Home, McGuffey Nursing v. Simmons persuading the court ultimate burden Inc., 619 F.2d (5th Cir.1980). inten- plaintiff has the victim of been Eighth has affirmed a sum- Circuit If remains on her. tional discrimination mary judgment for a defendant where the plain- pаrt as the evidence introduced employment discrimination case does not tend to tiffs prima facie case. discriminatory reason more case established prove that a plaintiff in an em- Marsh, 859 F.2d v. Pierce case does not in discrimination VII). ployment articu- Cir.1988)(Title granting of a non-discriminatоry rea- of itself foreclose legitimate lated when defen- promote decision not motion for its son agreed court evidence sufficient 603. The has Id. at dant plaintiff. to whether issue of as district court raise with plaintiff. from which a any against provide it discriminated failed that the infer of fact cоuld trier rational non-discriminatory articulated

defendant’s 604. The Id. at pretextual.

reason was having failed plaintiff,

court held must, pretext, any evidence

to raise law, racial claim of fail his

matter Corp. v. (citing Celotex

discrimination. 322-23, Catrett, 477 U.S. III, LARGENT, De- C.M. ESTATE OF 2548, 2552-53, ceased, Largent, individ- F. and Bobbie Liberty Lobby, Anderson ually and as Execu- her own on behalf 2505, 2509-12, 91 L.Ed.2d 247-52, 106 S.Ct. III, Largent, the Estate C.M. trix for (1986)). Deceased, Appellants, directly addressed Circuit Eleventh Metal Reynolds Grigsby issue in “the holding that Co., America, Appellee. STATES UNITED prima facie case establishment No. 89-5326. discrimi- in itself entitle a motion Appeals, to survive Court of nation United States in all cases.” Eighth Circuit. conclusion the same Circuit reached Ninth May Submitted Motorola, Inc., in Steckl 6, 1990. Aug. Decided 393-94, stating: summary judg- also claims that Steckl age discrimination in an

ment has established

precluded prove intends to case and

prima facie credibility of challenging the

pretext on cross-examina- employer's witness ‍​​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​‍ADEA disagree. Plaintiffs We

tion. issue of must tender pretext in order as to

material summary judgment.

avoid whether make difference

It should of materi- genuine issue raising a

evidence part of the in as pretext comes al fact evidence, case or as additional

prima facie legit- employer has articulated

after its em- non-discriminatory reason for

imate action, must be but such

ployment the elements Merely satisfying

presented. case is prima facie to establish

required judg- summary enough to foreclose

ment. result, but be- concur

I therefore proof of a made clear it should be

lieve

Case Details

Case Name: Vanya M. HAGLOF, Appellant, v. NORTHWEST REHABILITATION, INC., a Minnesota Corporation, Appellee

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Date Published: Aug 6, 1990

Citation: 910 F.2d 492

Docket Number: 89-5245

Court Abbreviation: 8th Cir.