# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 7- 20 98

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Dou gl as McPh ers on

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.
Meg an J. Bre nn an , Pos tm as te r Gen eral , U.S. Pos ta l Se rv ic e

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - St . Lou is

__ __ __ __ __ __ Su bm it te d: Marc h 1 3, 2 01 8 Fi le d: Apri l 3 0, 2 01 8 [Pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re GRUENDER, BOW MAN, an d ERI CKSON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __
PER CURI AM.

Dou gl as McP he rs on ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t’s di sm is sa l fo r fai lu re to st at e a cl ai m in hi s di sc riminat io n- in -h iri ng act io n. Afte r care fu ll y rev ie win g th e reco rd an d th e pa rti es ’ arg um en ts on ap pe al , we affi rm in pa rt an d rev ers e in pa rt. See Pl y m ou th Ct y

. v. Mer sc or

p, In c., 77 4 F.3 d 11 55 , 11 58 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (g r a n t of m ot io n to di sm is s i s re vi ewed de no vo ).McP he rs on al le ge d th at he was im pr op erl y reject ed fo r th e po si ti on of Cri m in al In ve st ig at or wit h th e U n i t e d St at es Po st al Serv ic e (USPS) in vi ol at io n of th e Age Dis cri m in at io n in Em

pl oym en t Act (A D EA ) , 2 9 U.S.C. § 62 1 et se q., an d th at he sh ou ld ha ve be en gi ve n pr efer en ce fo r th e po si ti on du e to hi s st at us as a ve te ran

. He
at ta ch ed th e job de sc rip ti on fo r th e po si ti on an d al le ge d th at he was qu al ifi ed fo r th e po si ti on . The d is tri ct co ur t gr an te d th e Po st m as te r Gen eral ’s m ot io n t o d is m is s t he
act io n un de r Fed e r al Ru le of Ci vi l Pro ced ur e 12 (b )(6 ), co nc lu di ng th at McP he rs on

was pr ecl ud ed fro m br in gi ng hi s ve te ran ’s pr efer en ce cl ai m in fed eral di st ric t co ur t,

an d th at he fai le d to al le ge on e of th e el em en ts of th e pr im a faci e cas e fo r hi s ADEA cl ai m by ad m it ti ng th at he di d no t po ss es s a ba si c r e q u i r e men t li st ed in th e job de sc rip ti on

. 1

W e co nc lu de th at th e co ur t erre d in di sm is si ng McP he rs on ’s ADEA cl ai m

. See Mi nn

. Majo rit y v. Man sk y , 70 8 F.3d 10 51 , 10 55 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ) (in rev ie win g Ru le 12 (b )(6 ) di sm is sa l, th e co ur t as su m es al l fact s in th e co m pl ai nt to be tru e an d

co ns tru es all reas on ab le in fere nc es in fav or of c om pl ai na nt ). W hi le th e Po st m as te r Gen eral arg ue s th at McP he rs on di d no t pl ead fact s t o s ho w he was qu al ifi ed for th e po si ti on be cau se he di d n ot all eg e th at he m et all of t he m in im um qu al ifi cat io ns set fo rth in th e jo b d e sc rip ti on (s pe ci fic al ly, he di d no t po ss es s an “ 18 11 ” cri m in al in ve st ig at or cl as si fic at io n) , McP he rs on ’s al le ga ti on s i n d i cat ed th at th e cri te ria th e USPS rel ie d up on in ev al ua ti ng qu al ifi cat io n fo r th e po si ti on di ffe red fro m th e cri te ria

se t fo rth in th e job de sc rip ti on , as th e in di vi du al se le ct ed fo r th e po si ti on di d no t m eet th e st at ed cri te ria , an d th e Offi ce of Pers on ne l Man ag em en t’s qu al ifi cat io n st an da rd s f o r t he po si ti on di d no t req ui re an 18 11 cl as si fic at io n. See Tus in g v. Des M o i n e s In de p. Cm ty. Sch . Di st ., 63 9 F .3d 50 7, 5 15 (8t h C ir. 2 01 1) (pr im a fac ie cas e of ag e di sc riminat io n in hi rin g r e q u i r e s a sh owi ng th at pl ai nt iff was in th e pr ot ect ed ag e

McP he rs on do es no t chal le ng e o n a pp eal th e d is tri ct co ur t’s d is m is sa l o f hi s 1 cl ai m ba se d on hi s ve te ran ’s pr efer en ce. See Hes s v. Abl es , 71 4 F.3 d 10 48 , 10 15 n.2 (8 th Cir . 20 13 ) (cl ai m s n ot ad dr es se d i n b rie f are ab an do ne d)

. -2

-gr ou p (ov er 40 ), pl ai nt iff was qu al ifi ed fo r th e po si ti on , pl ai nt iff was no t hi red , an d

em pl oyer hi red a y ou ng e r p e r s on to fil l th e po si ti on ). Bec au se McP he rs on al le ge d th at he ha d th e ed uc at io na l an d pr of es si on al ex pe rie nc e req ui red fo r th e po si ti on , we

co nc lu de th at he ad eq ua te ly pl ed a pr im a faci e cas e. See Bl om ke r v. Je well , 83 1 F.3 d 10 51 , 10 56 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ) (p rima faci e cas e is an ev id en ti ary st an da rd , no t a pl ead in g req ui r e m en t (ci ti ng Swie rk ie wicz v. So rem a, 53 4 U.S. 50 6 (2 00 2) )); Hag er v. Ark

. Dep ’t of Heal th , 73 5 F.3 d 10 09 , 10 14 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ) (“ U n d e r S wier ki ewic z, a pl ai nt iff ne ed no t pl ead fact s es ta bl is hi ng a pr im a faci e cas e of di sc riminat io n

. . . in

or de r to de feat a m ot io n to di sm is s.”) ; se e al so W il so n v. Ark

. Dep ’t of Hum an Serv s., 85 0 F.3 d 36 8, 37 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 17 ) (p la in ti ff’s bu rd en at th e pr im a-fa ci e-ca se st ag e of th e an al y si s i s “ no t o ne ro us ”).

Acco rd in gl y , we rev ers e t h e d i s mi ss al as to McP he rs on ’s ADEA cl ai m , an d

rem an d fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs on th at cla im . W e aff irm in all ot he r res pe ct s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-3

-