NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 09a0495n.06 No. 08-5416 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
STANL EY R. OL I VER, Pla int if f- Ap pe lla nt,
v.
F ED ERA TE D M UT UA LI NSU RA NC E COMPANY, Def endant- Appellee

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE EAS TER

N DI S TR I CT OF KENTUCKY

B e fo re : SI L ER, GI L MA

N, and KE TH L ED GE , Ci rc uit

Judg e s. P ER CURIAM . Stanley Oliver a ppeals summary judgme nt in favor of Fe derated Mutual on his c laims of

discrimination in violation of the Ag e Discr imination in Em ploy ment Act (A DEA) and the Ke ntucky

Civil Rights Act ( KCRA). We aff irm the well-r easo n ed o p i n i on of the district
c ourt
. Under

both the ADEA a

nd KCRA, it is unlawful for an employ er “to di schar g e any ind ivi du a l or

oth e rw ise dis c ri min a te a g a ins t any ind ivi du a l w ithre sp e c t to his c omp e ns a tio n, te rm s, conditions, or privileg es of e mploy ment, beca

use of such individual’s a g e.” 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(1) ; K.R.S. § 344.040(1), (2). Aplaintiff may support a claim of age discrimination in employ ment by offe ring either dire ct or c ircumstantial evidenc e of discr imination. Mi tc he ll v . V an de rb ilt Un iv ., 389 F.3d 177, 181 ( 6th Cir. 2004). I f a pla intiff is unable to provide dire ct evidenc e of discr imination,No. 08-5416

- 2 -

he may offe r circ umstantial evidence of an improper m otive under the burden- shifting a pproac h established by

the Supreme Court in McD onnell Douglas Corp. v. Green , 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973). The district cour

t properly

deter mined that Oliver fa iled to present dire ct evidenc e of discrimination. The isolated statement made by Coaker, “ [y ]ou know, old guy s like us, y ou and me, we can’t ty

p e a s f a s t a s th o s e y o u n g e r

g u y s , ” w a s n o t p art o f

th e d e c is io n a l p r o c e s s an d w as
unconnec ted in time and context to Oliver’s termination. The c onversation in which Coaker ma de this stat em ent occ urre d prior to Oliver’ s retra ining in L P ga s, prior to Oliver’ s “NI ” per formanc e
re vie w, and

pr ior to O liv e r’ s p la c e me nt o n the Pe rf or manc e I mpr ov e me nt Pla

n. Ol ive r’ s f

a ilure to improve his L P ga s evaluations, poor perfor mance evaluations, and failure to improve in acc ordanc e wi th t he Pe rf or manc e I mpr ov e me nt Pla

n we re imp or

tant fa c tor s in the de c isi on to of fe r Ol ive r e arl y retire ment. The d is tr ic t c o u rt a ls o c o r r e c tl y c o n c lu d e d

th a t O li v e r

f a il e d to e s ta b li s h th a t F e d e r ated Mutual’s articulated re ason for the terminatio n wa s s i m ply a pre text desig ned to mask unlawf ul d i s cr i m i n at i o nu n d er

t h e f am i l i ar b u rd en -s hifting f

rame work of M

c Donnell Douglas Corp. v. Gree n . I n order to show pretext, a plaintiff must de monstrate that the defe ndant’s proff ere d rea son either: (1) has no basis in f act; (2) did not actua lly motivate the adver se employ ment action; or (3)
was insufficient to motivate the ac tion. Dews v. A.B. D ick Co. , 231 F.3d 1016, 1021 ( 6th Cir. 2000). Thus, the “plainti ff m u s t p roduce sufficie nt evidence from which the jury could re asonably

reje ct [t he def endant’ s] ex planation and infe r that the de fenda nts
. . . d i d not honestly believe in the proff ere d nondiscriminatory rea son for its adver se employ ment action.” Braithwai te v. Timken Co. , 258 F.3d 488, 493-94 (6th Cir. 2001) (interna l quotation marks and citations omitted). Oliver a rg uesNo. 08-5416

- 3 -

that Fe derated Mutual’s prof fer ed reason for Oliver ’s termination had no ba sis in fact and w as insufficient to motivate his termination. Oliver’s a

rg uments fail. Fir st, t h er e i s s ubstantial evidenc e in the re cord de monstrating Ol ive r’ s d e te ri or a tin g wo rk pe rf or manc e . O ve r t

he fi na l th re e y ears of his e mpl oy me nt, his perf ormanc e eva luations steadily declined f

rom “E” to “NI .” He was retra ined on L P g as af ter a n
au d i to f h i s wo rki nt h i s ar eawa s fo u n d t o b e u n s at i s fa ct o ry . Af t e r h e w a s gi v en an “N I ” r at i n g, Oliver wa s place d on a Perf ormanc e Improvemen t Plan. At the conclusion of the pla n, he wa s of fe re d e arl y

re tir e me nt. Second, Oliver

has not provided e vid en ce demonstrating that y oung er e mploy ees w ho eng ag ed in substantially

simil ar c onduct wer e reta ined. He c ontends that Tim Mag ers a nd Heather L ong , both Risk C onsultants in their l ate 20s or early 30s, submitt ed late work produc t and wer e not terminated. Ol ive r h a s f

a ile d to c arr

y his burd e n for se ve ra l r e a so ns . F ir st, he wa s n ot r e mov e d f ro m hi s position sol ely

for his fa ilure to timely transmi t h i s wo rk. As indicate d on his Performanc e I mprovement Plan, timely transmission is j ust one of seve nteen items listed. Second, he does not provide a ny evidenc e that either Ma g ers or L ong wer e Senior Risk Consult ants, or that either of them had compa

rably poor perf ormanc e evaluations. Finally , neither Mag ers nor L ong was plac ed on a Perfor mance I mprovement Plan. AFF I RMED.