Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01558/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01558-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
George Roger Lee
Appellant
Rheem Manufacturing Company
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Robert T. Dawson, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

________________

No. 05-1558

________________

George Roger Lee,

Appellant,

v.

Rheem Manufacturing Company,

 Appellee.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Appeal from the United States

District Court for the Western

District of Arkansas.

________________

Submitted: October 12, 2005 

 Filed: December 28, 2005

________________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, BENTON and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. 

________________

GRUENDER, Circuit Judge.

George Roger Lee appeals the decision of the district court1

 granting summary

judgment to Rheem Manufacturing Company (“Rheem”) on Lee’s claim under the

Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634. For the

reasons stated below, we affirm.

Appellate Case: 05-1558 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/28/2005 Entry ID: 1990504
-2-

I. BACKGROUND

Rheem operates a manufacturing plant in Fort Smith, Arkansas. The plant is

part of Rheem’s Air Conditioning Division, and the administrative offices of that

division are attached to the plant. Lee began working for Rheem at this facility in

1969 as Assistant Personnel Director in the human resources department and was

promoted to Human Resources Manager in 1973. As Human Resources Manager,

Lee’s responsibilities included supervising plant personnel, formulating and

implementing personnel policies and procedures, acting as Rheem’s chief spokesman

during contract negotiations with Local 7893 of the United Steelworkers of America

(“Local 7893”), representing Rheem in labor arbitrations, and approving all salaried

promotions, demotions, and merit increases.

In 1995 or early 1996, Lee was diagnosed with chronic fatigue syndrome. After

Lee’s physician determined that he could no longer perform the duties of Human

Resources Manager, Lee voluntarily retired from Rheem on May 31, 1996. Lee

elected to receive his Rheem-sponsored pension and profit-sharing accounts in a lump

sum and subsequently lost a substantial amount of that money in the stock market.

Upon Lee’s retirement, Tony Johnson began performing the duties of Human

Resources Manager and was officially given the title in 1999. Johnson had been hired

by Lee in 1977 and for 19 years worked as Lee’s subordinate in three positions at

Rheem, including Labor Relations Administrator. 

After Lee retired from Rheem, the relationship between Rheem and Local 7893

grew increasingly tense for several reasons. In 1998, for the first time since at least

1977, union members at the plant went on strike for one week during contract

negotiations. The tension was also due in part to the election of Rheem employee

James Steele as President of Local 7893 in 2001 because Steele had a confrontational

attitude toward Rheem and the number of grievances filed by the union dramatically

increased during his tenure. Furthermore, the union resisted changes that occurred

Appellate Case: 05-1558 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/28/2005 Entry ID: 1990504
-3-

when Rheem began implementing the “lean manufacturing” business model at the

Fort Smith plant in 2001. For example, the model required employees to perform a

larger number of production tasks and to rotate between tasks within their

departments. 

In October 2002, a position in the human resources department entitled Labor

Relations Administrator became vacant when an employee passed away unexpectedly.

Rheem recruited for this position by means of an advertisement placed in three

newspapers, which described the qualifications for the job as follows:

The successful candidate will have a bachelor’s degree in a businessrelated field with at least 5 years experience in labor relations. Proven

experience in labor agreement interpretation, grievance handling,

discipline, arbitration preparation, negotiations, and human resources

generalist knowledge is required. Excellent interpersonal skills required.

The Labor Relations Administrator was responsible for investigating grievances filed

by Local 7893, representing Rheem in meetings with Local 7893 regarding the

grievances, investigating disciplinary incidents involving bargaining-unit employees,

preparing for labor arbitrations, participating in negotiations for new collective

bargaining agreements, and performing other human resource functions assigned by

the Human Resources Manager and others. When Lee held the position of Human

Resources Manager, he supervised the Labor Relations Administrators and performed

many of the tasks that in 2002 were accomplished by the Labor Relations

Administrators.

Twelve individuals expressed interest in the Labor Relations Administrator

position–nine external applicants, including Lee and Donald W. Raines, and three

internal applicants. Before mailing his resume and cover letter, Lee contacted Tony

Johnson, William S. Ostan, the corporate Vice President of Human Resources in New

York, and J.R. Jones, the President of the Air Conditioning Division, to ask if they had

Appellate Case: 05-1558 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/28/2005 Entry ID: 1990504
-4-

any objections to Lee applying for the position. They each responded that they did

not have a problem with Lee’s applying for the position. A three-person search

committee composed of Johnson, Gary Hale, the Air Conditioning Division Vice

President of Human Resources, and Tom Wise, the Fort Smith Plant Manager,

interviewed the applicants and unanimously recommended Raines to Ostan. Ostan

independently interviewed Raines and approved the selection. At the time, Lee was

63 years old and Raines was 39. 

Lee filed suit against Rheem under the ADEA based on Rheem failing to hire

Lee for the Labor Relations Administrator position. The district court granted

Rheem’s motion for summary judgment, assuming that Lee presented direct evidence

of age discrimination and holding that Rheem provided sufficient evidence that it

would have made the same decision absent consideration of Lee’s age. The district

court also determined, assuming that Lee established a prima facie case of age

discrimination, that Lee failed to introduce evidence creating a genuine issue of

material fact as to whether Rheem’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for not

hiring him were pretextual. Lee appeals the grant of summary judgment, arguing that

he presented direct evidence of discrimination, or in the alternative, that he came

forward with sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact as to

whether Rheem’s asserted reasons for the employment decision were pretextual. 

II. DISCUSSION

We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Rheem de novo.

Logan v. Liberty Healthcare Corp., 416 F.3d 877, 880 (8th Cir. 2005). Summary

judgment is appropriate when the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the

nonmoving party, shows that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the

moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c);

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,

Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249-50 (1986).

Appellate Case: 05-1558 Page: 4 Date Filed: 12/28/2005 Entry ID: 1990504
-5-

The ADEA prohibits a covered employer from failing or refusing to hire an

individual who is at least forty years old because of the individual’s age. 29 U.S.C.

§§ 623(a)(1), 631(a). An individual claiming age discrimination may survive the

employer’s motion for summary judgment in one of two ways. First, the individual

can present direct evidence of discrimination, which is “evidence showing a specific

link between the alleged discriminatory animus and the challenged decision, sufficient

to support a finding by a reasonable fact finder that an illegitimate criterion actually

motivated the adverse employment action.” Russell v. City of Kansas City, Missouri,

414 F.3d 863, 866 (8th Cir. 2005) (quoting Griffith v. City of Des Moines, 387 F.3d

733, 736 (8th Cir. 2004)); see, e.g., E.E.O.C. v. Liberal R-II School Dist., 314 F.3d

920, 924-25 (8th Cir. 2002) (holding that a bus driver’s allegation that the

superintendent told him the school board felt he “was too old to drive a bus” and the

superintendent’s comment to the unemployment board that plaintiff was “now 70 1/2

years of age” constituted direct evidence of age discrimination); Kneibert v. Thomson

Newspapers, Mich. Inc., 129 F.3d 444, 452 (8th Cir. 1997) (holding that the statement

of a decisionmaker to a terminated editor that he “had no use for a senior editor” but

rather needed “three young editors” for the news department was direct evidence).

The second way to survive summary judgment is by “creating the requisite inference

of unlawful discrimination” through the familiar three-part analysis of McDonnell

Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). Griffith, 387 F.3d at 736. Lee argues

that he presented sufficient direct and circumstantial evidence to avoid summary

judgment in favor of Rheem.

A. Direct Evidence

Lee first argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment

because certain inquiries and comments made during his interview for the Labor

Relations Administrator position constituted direct evidence of discrimination. We

disagree and hold that none of these statements demonstrate a specific link between

the alleged age-related discriminatory animus and Rheem’s decision not to hire Lee.

Appellate Case: 05-1558 Page: 5 Date Filed: 12/28/2005 Entry ID: 1990504
-6-

According to Lee, Wise told him during the interview that “things have changed a

lot,” asked Lee if he thought he would be able to “grasp these new processes” in the

plant, and stated that Rheem had to “plan for the future.” Hale made the analogy of

Lee returning to a basketball team during a new season with a new coach and finding

himself on the bench. In addition, both Hale and Wise asked Lee how long he

intended to work if hired. 

Although Lee’s expected years of work is related to his age, “factors other than

age, but which may be correlative with age, do not implicate the prohibited stereotype,

and are thus not prohibited considerations.” Schiltz v. Burlington Northern R.R., 115

F.3d 1407, 1412 (8th Cir. 1997) (citing Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604,

611 (1993)). We have held that the statement by a decisionmaker to an employee

allegedly made while explaining the decision to demote him, “Twenty years is too

long. You should have moved five years ago,” did not constitute direct evidence of

age discrimination. Erickson v. Farmland Indus., Inc., 271 F.3d 718, 725 (8th Cir.

2001). This is because “[t]o amount to direct evidence of age discrimination, there

would have to be evidence that [the employer] was using length of tenure as a proxy

to accomplish age discrimination.” Id. Also in Erickson, the decisionmaker’s

comments that the employee was “stale,” “set in his ways” and “needed a new focus”

did not constitute direct evidence. Id. at 724-25. Similarly, here the interviewers’

comments to Lee regarding changes in the Fort Smith plant express “legitimate

business concerns,” id. at 725, and do not “clearly point[] to the presence of an illegal

motive.” Griffith, 387 F.3d at 736. No reasonable fact-finder could conclude that the

questions and statements posed to Lee are direct evidence that age discrimination

actually motivated Rheem’s decision not to hire Lee.

Appellate Case: 05-1558 Page: 6 Date Filed: 12/28/2005 Entry ID: 1990504
-7-

B. Circumstantial Evidence

Because Lee lacks direct evidence of age discrimination, we analyze his claim

under the burden-shifting analysis of McDonnell Douglas. Like the district court, we

assume that Lee has established a prima facie case of age discrimination and shift the

burden to the employer to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its

hiring decision. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 142

(2000). If the employer proffers such a reason, it then becomes the individual’s

burden to show there is a genuine factual controversy regarding whether the

legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason is a pretext for an intent to discriminate based

on age. Chambers v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 351 F.3d 848, 855 (8th Cir. 2003).

Rheem has articulated several legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its

employment decision. Rheem wanted to hire someone who would work for more than

a few years and had the potential to succeed Johnson, who was 56 years old at the

time, as the Human Resources Manager. The search committee believed that Lee’s

goal was not to begin a challenging career and to advance within the company, but to

earn short-term money necessitated by his losses in the stock market. Lee told the

interviewers and other Rheem personnel in writing and in person that he was not

interested in replacing Johnson. Rheem also was concerned about Lee’s health

because he had retired from Rheem in 1996 due to chronic fatigue syndrome and the

Labor Relations Administrator position had become a high stress position with a

greater workload as a result of discord between the union and Rheem. Hale was

disturbed by Lee’s display of poor judgment when Lee called Local 7893 President

Steele to ask if Steele would be able to work with him if Lee was hired as the Labor

Relations Administrator. In addition, Rheem believed that overall Raines was more

qualified than Lee because Raines was interested in a long-term relationship with

Rheem and eventual promotion, was familiar with lean manufacturing principles, had

significant labor relations experience, and was genuinely interested in the job and

opportunities at Rheem.

Appellate Case: 05-1558 Page: 7 Date Filed: 12/28/2005 Entry ID: 1990504
-8-

Because Rheem articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its

decision not to hire Lee, the burden shifts back to Lee to present sufficient evidence

to raise a question of material fact as to whether one or more of Rheem’s proffered

reasons is a pretext for age discrimination. Griffith, 387 F.3d at 736-37. Keeping in

mind that “courts do not review the wisdom or fairness of employers’ business

judgments, other than to determine whether they involve intentional unlawful

discrimination,” Peterson v. Scott County, 406 F.3d 515, 523 (8th Cir. 2005), we

conclude that Lee has not met his burden and summary judgment was appropriately

granted to Rheem.

Lee argues that Rheem’s desire to hire a successor for Johnson was pretextual

because he claims that Rheem did not engage in successorship planning at that level.

However, the record supports Rheem because both Lee himself and Johnson had been

promoted to Human Resources Manager after holding a subordinate position within

the human resources department. Moreover, Lee specifically informed the search

committee that he was not interested in replacing Johnson but would mentor and train

whoever succeeded Johnson in the Human Resources Manager position. Rheem’s

concern that Lee was focused solely on the money and was not genuinely interested

in the work or in promotions within the company also is supported by the record. Lee

made the unusual offer to work as the Labor Relations Administrator for half-salary

for a period of six months and thereafter for full salary only if Rheem was satisfied

with his performance. In one of the interviews, Lee also described his financial

troubles and his lawsuit against a financial advisor. 

Next, Lee contends that Rheem’s concern about his health was pretextual, yet

he previously acknowledged that his health was a legitimate concern. For example,

after his interview, Lee wrote a follow-up letter to Jones, the President of the Air

Conditioning Division, in which Lee stated:

Appellate Case: 05-1558 Page: 8 Date Filed: 12/28/2005 Entry ID: 1990504
-9-

It appears that Rheem management has two major concerns about my

returning to work for Rheem. One is my health, and the other is the need

for a suitable replacement for Tony should he depart the Company in the

next few years. These are certainly legitimate concerns that need a

rational response for me to be a viable candidate for the position.

Lee also asserts that Rheem’s concern over his contact with Steele was

pretextual because Lee simply wanted to determine if Steele could work with him in

reducing the number of grievances at the plant if Lee was hired as the Labor Relations

Administrator. While this may be true, it does not show that Rheem’s concern was

pretextual. Rheem reasonably viewed Lee’s call to the President of Local 7893 as a

questionable judgment given the changed atmosphere at the plant since Lee’s

retirement due to Rheem’s strained relationship with Local 7893, the implementation

of lean manufacturing, and new leadership of the Air Conditioning Division. 

Finally, Lee contends that Rheem’s desire to hire someone familiar with lean

manufacturing was a pretext because that qualification was not listed in the newspaper

advertisement. However, the advertisement noted that an applicant needed experience

with grievance handling, negotiations and other labor relations matters. In performing

these duties at Rheem, the Labor Relations Administrator would be dealing with Local

7893, which was resisting the implementation of lean manufacturing principles in the

Fort Smith plant. While Lee had no experience with lean manufacturing, Raines

currently was working for a company that utilized those principles. Furthermore,

Raines had labor relations experience and was interested in a long-term career and

promotions at Rheem. Lee himself characterized Raines as “educationally over

qualified for the position.” Although Lee had significant labor relations experience

at Rheem, the search committee took many factors into consideration, and we will not

question the wisdom of Rheem’s decision that Raines was more qualified for the

position. See Thomas v. Runyon, 108 F.3d 957, 960 (8th Cir. 1997) (stating in a Title

VII race discrimination case that “[o]ur determination is limited to whether the

employer gave an honest nondiscriminatory explanation for its actions, rather than to

weigh the wisdom of any particular employment decision”). 

Appellate Case: 05-1558 Page: 9 Date Filed: 12/28/2005 Entry ID: 1990504
-10-

We conclude that Lee has not established evidence sufficient to raise a triable

issue as to whether Rheem’s nondiscriminatory reasons for not hiring Lee for the

Labor Relations Administrator position were pretext for age discrimination.

Accordingly, the district court properly granted summary judgment.

III. CONCLUSION

We affirm the grant of summary judgment to Rheem on Lee’s age

discrimination claim. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1558 Page: 10 Date Filed: 12/28/2005 Entry ID: 1990504