2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 7-28-2008 

# W i lli ams v . D ove r D owns G aming P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-2386

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " W i ll i am s v . D ove r D own s G amin g " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 785. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/785H onor abl e A . W al l ace T as hi m a, Seni orJ udge of the U ni t ed St at es C our tof * A p p e a ls f

o r t h e N in th C ir c u it, s ittin g b yd e s ig n a tio n . NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o: 07- 2386 RI CH A RD L. W I LLI A M S a nd M I CH A EL E . PETE RS,

P l ai nti ffs/ A pp el l ants ,

v. D O V E R D O W N S, I N C . , a D el aw ar e C orpor at i on D efen dan t s/A pp el l ees. O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rtfo r th e D istri ct of D elaw are (N o . 0 5 -04 3 5 (G M S )) Subm i t t ed pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ar ch 28, 2008 Be f o r e : M c KE E , RE NDE L L a n d T AS HI M A, C i r cui tJudges * ( O pi ni on Fi l ed: J ul y28, 2008)

OP I NI ON T A S H IM A , C i r cui tJudge . R icha rd L . W il li am s (“W il li am s”) a n d M icha el E . P eters (“P eters”) (tog ethe r, “Pl ai nt i ffs ”) appea l t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof D efe ndantD overD ow ns G ami ng & E nt ert ai nm ent , I nc. w as di s m i s s ed fr om the ac t i on 1 byt he di s t r i ctcour ton O ct ober21, 2005. D overD ow ns , I nc. ( “D efe ndant ” or“D overD ow ns ”) on Pl ai nt i ffs ’ cl ai m thatD efe ndant 1 term inated them in v iolati o n o f th e A g e D iscri m ination in E m p loym en t A ct (“A D E A ”), 29 U . S. C . § 621 et

s eq. I n gr ant i ng D efe ndant ’ s s um m aryj udgm entm ot i on, the di s t r i ct cour tconcl uded thatPl ai nt i ffs fai l ed t o carr ythei revi dent i arybur dens underei t herthe “di r ectevi dence ” fr amew or k of P r i ce W at er hous e v. H

opki ns , 490 U . S. 228 ( 1989) ort he “i ndi r ectevi dence ” fr amew or k of McD onnel lD ougl as C or p. v. G r een , 411 U . S. 792 (1 9 7 3 ). See W

i l l i am s v. D overD ow ns I nc. , N o . 0 5 -C V -43 5 , 2 0 0 7 W L 1 2 9 7 0 2 2 , at ** 4 -7 ( D. De l . M a y2 , 2 0 0 7 ) . W e a g r e e a n d wi l l a f f i r m. I. B ec au se w e w ri te fo r th e b en ef ito f th e p arti es, w e d iscu ss o n lythe f ac ts ne ce ssary t o t he di s pos i t i on of thi s cas e. O n D ece m ber23, 2003, Pl ai nt i ffs w er e among si x D over D ow ns empl oy ees w ho obs erved an una uthor i zed dr ag r ace betw een tw o other empl oy ees , E r ni e C ar l i s l e and Bri an W i l l i ams ( w ho i s W i l l i ams’ s on) , atthe D over In ter n a tio n a l S p e e d w a y . T h e S p e e d w a yis o w n e d b yD e f e n d a n t an d w o rld f

a m o u s f o r its N A SC A R r ace s . T he r ace ended w hen B r i an W i l l i ams cr as hed hi s vehi cl e and w as t aken aw ayi n an ambul ance . A ft eri nves t i gat i ng the i nci dent , D overD ow ns fi r ed C ar l i s l e, B r i an W i l l i ams, and both Pl ai nt i ffs . A tthe t i m e of the fi r i ng, W i l l i ams w as fi fty - fi ve y e a rs o ld a n d h a d w o rk e d f o r D o v e r D o w n s s in c e 1 9 7 8 ; P e ter s w a s f if ty -tw o y e a rs o ld and had be en empl oy ed ther e s i nce 1985. T he otherfourempl oy ees , w hos e age s r angedfr om t w enty - fourt o s i xt y - ei ghty ear s , w er e br i efl ys us pended butw er e nott erm i nat ed.

I n Pl ai nt i ffs ’ w r i t t en t erm i nat i on not i ces , D overD ow ns expl ai ned thatPl ai nt i ffs w er e bei ng fi r ed “[ i ] n vi ew of the fa ctthat[they ] had veryr ece nt l ybeen i s s ued a w r i t t en w arni ng fori ns ubor di nat i on, and the fa ctthat[they ] di d notr epor tthi s verys er i ous in c id e n t.” T h e lette rs n o ted th a t b o th P lain tiff s s itu a ted th e ir w o rk v e h icle s a t th e g a te to t he r ace t r ack s o as t o “pr eventany one fr om comi ng i n dur i ng the r ace , ” and i ndi cat ed t hat theirpo si t i on s as M echan i c I’ s gave them the “respon si bil i t yt o reportanysuspi ci ou s, uns afe orr eckl es s behavi or . ” E d w a rd S u to r, D o v e r D o w n s’ C h ief O p e ra tin g O f

f ice r, m a d e th e f

in a l d e c isio n to fi r e Pl ai nt i ffs , t es t i fy i ng t hathe hel d Pl ai nt i ffs m or e cul pabl e than the otherfour obs erver s “bec aus e of thei rage a nd exper i ence . ” W hen as ked w hetherhe hel d ol der empl oy ees t o a hi ghers t andar d, Sut ors ai d “N o, ” s t at i ng i ns t ead thathi s expec t at i ons of P l ai nti ffs w ere based on t heirm anyy ears of ex peri ence, nottheirages. S utoral so t es t i fi ed thatPl ai nt i ffs ’ i ns ubor di nat i on ci t at i ons w er e notr el evantt o t he t erm i nat i on deci s i on; i ns t ead, acc or di ng t o Sut or , the t erm i nat i on deci s i on w as bas ed on the “egr egi ous natur e of the i nci dent ” and the “br eac h of r es pons i bi l i t y ” theycomm i t t ed by parki ng t hei rvehi cl es acr os s t he gat e t o t he tr ack. W e r evi ew a di s t r i ctcour t ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm entde novo and a ppl ythe s a m e te s ts a s th e d is tr ic t c o u rt . Tom as s o v. B oei ng C o. , 4 4 5 F . 3 d 7 0 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). II. T o s ucce ed i n an age di s cr i m i nat i on cas e underthe A D E A , “a pl ai nt i ff musts howt hathi s orherage ‘ actual l ym ot i vat ed’ and ‘ had a de t erm i nat i ve i nfl uence ’ on t he

empl oy er ’ s deci s i on t o fi r e hi m orher . ” Fakete v. A t ena, I nc. , 3 0 8 F . 3 d 3 3 5 , 3 3 7 (3d C ir . 2002) ( quot i ng R eev es v. Sanders on P l um bi ng P r ods . , I nc. , 5 3 0 U .S . 1 3 3 , 1 4 1 (2 0 0 0 )) .

“ A p la in tif

f c a n m e e t th is b u rd e n (1 ) b yp re s e n tin g d ir e c t e v id e n c e o f d is c ri m in a tio n , s ee P r ic e W a te r h o u s e . . . , or( 2) bypr es ent i ng i ndi r ectevi dence of di s cr i m i nat i on that s at i s fi es t he fa m i l i art hr ee- s t ep fr amew or k of McD on nell D ou glas C orp . . . . ” Fas old v. Jus t i ce , 409 F. 3d 178, 184 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( ci t i ng Fa ke te , 3 0 8 F .3 d a t 3 3 7 -3 8 ); Kel l erv. O r i x C r edi tA l l i ance, I

nc. , 1 3 0 F .3 d 1 1 0 1 (3 d C ir .1 9 9 7 ) ( e n b a n c )) . D i r ectevi dence of age di s cr i m i nat i on underthe P ri ce W ater ho use s cheme r equi r es t hatPl ai nt i ffs ’ evi dence of age di s cr i m i nat i on be s uffi ci entt o al l ow the fa ct fi ndert o fi nd t hatt he empl oy erpl ace d a s ubs t ant i al negat i ve r el i ance on t he pl ai nt i ff’ s age i n r eac hi ng its d e c is io n . G l anz m an v. Metr o. M gm t . C or p. , 391 F. 3d 506, 512 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( ci t i ng Fa ke te , 308 F. 3d at338) . T hi s m eans thatPl ai nt i ffs m us tpr oduce e vi dence that“the empl oy er ’ s di s cr i m i nat or ym ot i vat i on ‘ caus ed’ the empl oym entdeci s i on. ” P r i ce W ater ho use , 490 U . S. at265 ( O ’ C onnor , J . , concurr i ng) . O nce the pl ai nt i ff ha s done s o, t h e b u r d e n s h i f

t s t o t h e e mp l o y e r , wh o mu s tth e n p r o v e th a ti two u l d h a v e t a k e n th e s a me a c tio n re g a rd le s s o f

P la in tif f s ’ a g e s . S e e Fa ke te , 308 F. 3d at338 ( ci t i ng P r i ce W ater ho use , 4 9 0 U . S . at 26 5 -66 (O ’C o n n o r, J. , co n cu rri n g )). H er e, Pl ai nt i ffs ar gue thatSut or ’ s s t at ementthatPl ai nt i ffs “had a gr eat erdegr ee of r es pons i bi l i t y. . . beca us e of thei rage a nd exper i ence ” i s di r ectevi dence of age di s cr i m i nat i on s uffi ci entt o m eett he P r i ce W at er hous e t es t . Sut or ’ s s t at ementi s notdi r ectevi dence t hatan age - di s cr i m i nat orym ot i ve ca us ed the t erm i nat i ons . A s the di s tr i ct

cour tr i ght l ynot ed, t he cont extof Sut or ’ s s t at ementi ndi cat es thathe fi r ed Pl ai nt i ffs m ai nl ybeca us e of thei rl ongevi t yof s ervi ce a nd fami l i ar i t yw i t h t he oper at i ons atD over D o w n s , s ee H

az en Paper Co. v. B iggi ns , 507 U . S. 604, 611 ( 1993) ( “[A ] ge and y ear s of se rv ice a re a n a lytica llyd istin c t”) ; c f . Ky . R e t . S

y s . v . EE OC , 128 S. C t . 2361, ____ ( 2008) ( concl udi ng t hatdi ffe r ent i al t r eatm entbas ed upon a pe ns i on s t atus thatturns i n par ton age doe s notnece s s ar i l ym ean thatt he di ffe r ent i al tr eatm enti s “mot i vat ed” byage ort hat there w as d iscri m ination “b ec au se o f” ag e), an d b ec au se h e p erc eive d that theyw ere m o re i n v o l v e d i n t h e r a c i n g a c t i v i t yt h a n th e o t h e rp a r t i c i p a n t s . M o r e o v e r , e v e n i f we a s s u me t hat Sutor ’s st at em ent const i tutes evidence thata dis cri m i natorym oti ve cau sed P l ai nti ffs’ t erm i nat i ons , D efe ndanthas demonstr at ed thati tw oul d have t erm i nat ed Pl ai nt i ffs re g a rd le s s o f

th e ira g e s . See P ri ce W ater ho use , 4 9 0 U .S . a t 2 6 6 , 2 7 7 (O ’C o n n o r, J ., co n cu rri n g ). A ltern a tiv e ly , A D E A p lain tiff s m a yp ro c e e d u n d e r th e in d ire c t ev id e n c e th e o ry , if th e yp re se n t circ u m sta n tial e v id e n c e su f f icie n t to sa tisf

yth e ir b u rd e n u n d e r o u r “ slig h tly m odi fi ed ver s i on” of the thr ee- s t ep McD on nell D ou glas bur den- s hi ft i ng s cheme. U nder t hats cheme, Pl ai nt i ffs m us tfi r s tes t abl i s h a pr i m a fa ci e ca s e us i ng i ndi r ectevi dence by s how i ng t hatt hey( 1) w er e mem ber s of the pr ot ect ed cl as s , i . e. , theyw er e 40 y ear s of age o r o ld e r, s ee 29 U . S. C . § 631( a) , ( 2) w er e di s char ged, ( 3) w er e qual i fi ed forthe pos i t i on fr om w hi ch theyw er e t erm i nat ed, and ( 4) w er e r epl ace d bya s uffi ci ent l yy oungerper s on to c re a te a n in f

e re n c e o f a g e d is c ri m in a tio n . See Kel l er , 1 3 0 F .3 d a t 1 1 0 8 ; acco rdA tkin so n v . L a fa y e tte C o ll. , 460 F. 3d 447, 454 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . O nce Pl ai nt i ffs es t abl i s h a pr i m a fa ci e ca s e of di s cr i m i nat i on, the bur den of pr oduct i on ( butnotthe bur den of p e rsu a sio n ) sh if

ts to D e f e n d a n t, “w h o m u st th e n o f f e r e v id e n c e th a t is su f

f icie n t, i f bel i eved, t o s uppor ta fi ndi ng t hati thad a l egi t i m at e r eas on forthe di s char ge. ” Kel l er , 130 F. 3d at1108 ( ci t i ng St . M ar y’s H onorC tr . v. Hi cks , 5 0 9 U . S . 5 0 2 , 5 0 6

– 0 7 (19 9 3 )). If th e e m p lo y e r f

a ils to s a tis f

yits b u rd e n , ju d g m e n t m u s t b e e n te re d f o r t h e p la in tif

f s . I d. If, on the o ther h an d , the e m p loy er sa ti sfies th is bu rde n , P lai n ti ff s m aysu rviv e su m m ary j udgm entbypoi nt i ng “ t o s om e evi dence , di r ectorci r cumst ant i al , fr om w hi ch a f a c tf in d e r c o u ld re a so n a b lye ith e r (1 ) d isb e liev e th e e m p lo y e r’s a rticu late d leg iti m a te re a so n s; o r (2 ) b e liev e th a t an in v id io u s d isc rim in a to ryre a so n w a s m o re lik e lyth a n n o t a m ot i vat i ng ordet erm i nat i ve ca us e of the empl oy er ’ s act i on. ” I d. ( quot i ng Fuent es v. P e rs k ie , 3 2 F .3 d 7 5 9 , 7 6 3 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 4 )); s ee al s o A tki ns on , 460 F. 3d at454 ( “I f the [empl oy eradvanc es a l egi t i m at e, non- di s cr i m i nat oryr eas on fori t s act i on, ] the bur den s h i f t s b a c k t o [ P l a i n t i f

f s ] t o p r o v e t h a tth e n o n d i s c r i m i n a t o r y e x p l a n a t i o n i s m e r e l y a p retex t fo r discrim ination . ”). H er e, Pl ai nt i ffs have e s t abl i s hed a pr i m a fa ci e ca s e. D efe ndant , how ever , has offe r ed s uffi ci entevi dence t o s uppor ta fi ndi ng thati thad a l egi t i m at e r eas on forthe di s char ge, namel y , t hatPl ai nt i ffs ( 1) hel d pos i t i ons of s om e r es pons i bi l i t y , w hi ch i ncluded t he respon si bil i t yfor r epo rt i ng un safe or r eckles s behav i or of o t her em ploy ees, (2) b lock ed the g ate in o rde r t o p rev en t i n terfere n ce w ith the ra ce , an d (3) f ail ed to rep o rt t he dr ag r ace t o m anage m entors ecur i t y , ort o t ake a nyeff or t s t o s t op the r aceB e c a u se D e f e n d a n t h a s s a tisf

ied its b u rd e n o f

p ro d u c tio n , P lain tiff

s m u st p o in t to s om e evi dence fr om w hi ch w e coul d r eas onabl yconcl ude thatD efe ndant ’ s ar t i cul at ed legiti m ate rea so n s are n o t believa b le or tha t an in v idiou s d iscri m inato ryrea so n w as m o re l i kel yt han nota mot i vat i ng ordet erm i nat i ve ca us e of the empl oy er ’ s act i on. T hi s they hav e fai l ed to do. Pl ai nti ffs po i nt onl yt o S utor ’s “age” refer ence a nd D ov er D ow ns’ in c o n sis ten t ex p lan a tio n s f o r th e ter m in a tio n s. T h e se in c o n sis ten c ies d o n o t co n stitu te

“ s u c h w e a k n e s s e s , im p la u s ib iliti e s , in c o n s is te n c ie s , in c o h e re n c ie s , o r c o n tr a d ic tio n s . . . that a re aso n ab le fa ctfind er c o u ld r at i onal l yfi nd them unw or t hyof cr edenc e. ” Fuent es , 3 2 F .3 d a t 7 6 5 (e m p h a s is in o ri g in a l) (i n te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s a n d c ita tio n s o m itte d ). “[D ] efe ndanti n t hi s cas e pr ovi ded evi dence thati thad a pa r t i cul ar l ypow er ful r eas on for d isc h a rg in g ” P lain tiff

s, i.e., th e ir p a rticip a tio n in a n d f a ilu re to sto p th e d ra g ra c e o n p it r ow , w hi ch r es ul t ed i n an extr emel ys er i ous cr as h, a cr as h w hi ch W i l l i ams des cr i bed as t he “mosthor r i bl e thi ng I have e vers een i n m yl i fe. ” See Kel l er , 1 3 0 F .3 d a t 1 1 0 9 . N ot hi ng putfor t h byPl ai nt i ffs m eet s thei rbur den of s how i ng, “notm er el ythatthe e m p lo y e r’s p ro f

f e re d re a so n [ s w e re ] w ro n g , b u t th a t [ th e y ] w e re so p lain lyw ro n g th a t it cannothave be en the empl oy er ’ s r eal r eas on. ” I d. III . Pl ai nt i ffs fai l ed t o pr ovi de di r ectorci r cumst ant i al evi dence of age di s cr i m i nat i on s uffi ci entt o s ur vi ve s um m aryj udgm ent . T he j udgm entof the di s t r i ctcour tw i l l be AF F I RMED .