IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-60467

Summary Calendar

STEVE G. RUTH, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

EKA CHEMICALS, INCORPORATED, 

 Defendant - Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 1:13-CV-165

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and HAYNES,1 Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Steve G. Ruth filed an age discrimination claim against Eka Chemicals. 

The district court granted the employer’s summary judgment motion and Ruth 

appeals. We affirm the district court’s judgment because Ruth failed to prove 

that age was the “but-for” cause of his employment termination.

 

1 Judge Haynes concurs in the judgment only.

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 8, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-60467 Document: 00513299489 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/08/2015
No. 15-60467

2

Ruth worked for Eka Chemicals as a Chief Technician for seventeen 

years, during which time he sustained a non-work related ankle injury. The 

injury required several surgeries which resulted in Ruth being away from work 

on short-term disability. After a few months, Ruth’s physician released him to 

return to work with considerable restrictions – no climbing, bending, stooping, 

squatting, pushing, pulling or lifting over 20 pounds. Eka allowed Ruth to 

return to work in a limited capacity, but the restrictions prevented him from

performing the essential duties of his job. Ruth was permitted to train

someone for a chief technician position, but due to the restrictions, was

returned to short-term disability status. He was subsequently terminated for 

violating the company’s disability policy when it was discovered that, while 

away from work, Ruth participated in activities such as golf, coaching softball 

and bending and lifting. Ruth contends that he was not prohibited from doing 

these activities as long as he was away from work and claimed that Eka 

terminated him because of his age in violation of the Age Discrimination in 

Employment Act (ADEA). 

To prevail on an ADEA claim, “[a] plaintiff must prove by a 

preponderance of the evidence (which may be direct or circumstantial), that 

age was the ‘but-for’ cause of the challenged employer decision.” Gross v. FBL 

Fin. Servs., Inc., 557 U.S. 167, 177-78, 129 S. Ct. 2343, 2351 (2009). The 

defendant has no burden of proof while plaintiff has this burden. Ruth would 

have to show that his employment was terminated only because of his age. 

Ruth asserts that Eka’s proffered reasons for the termination were 

pretextual, that he was replaced with someone younger, and that Eka had a 

pattern of age discrimination. However, he does not prove that he was 

dismissed only because of his age. Moreover, the assertion that Eka had a 

pattern of age discrimination was unsupported and inconsistent with the 

 Case: 15-60467 Document: 00513299489 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/08/2015
No. 15-60467

3

record which reflects that at the time of Ruth’s termination, seven of Eka’s 11 

chief technicians were age 48 and over. 

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-60467 Document: 00513299489 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/08/2015