Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/321207686/29-Fair-empl-prac-cas-172-29-Empl-Prac-Dec-P-32-833-Wilbur-L-Lovelace-v-Sherwin-Williams-Company-681-F-2d-230-4th-Cir-1982
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 03:02:26+00:00

Document:
Gordon & Gray, Charlotte, N. C., on brief), for appellee.
judge granted the defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
The plaintiff appealed, and we affirm.
stores across the nation and one of the two largest in an "Asheville district"
consisting of sixteen stores in parts of North Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia.
consisting of 139 stores including the sixteen in the Asheville district.
"overwhelming" evidence of a legitimate reason for Lovelace's demotion.
two specific areas, equipment and art supplies, that had been particularly slow.
simply listed ten potential customers without any discussion.
higher than 12th in any of the seven categories and last overall.
train him for his new job, despite specific instructions from Cardwell to do so.
This employee eventually requested a transfer from the store.
management in the store were not improving.
then go to work to improve."
of the change in Asheville, 6 of the 16 managers in the district were over 50.
Lovelace, but was willing to accept the position once Lovelace was replaced.
meetings with Cardwell and Davenport to discuss the reasons for his demotion.
company official while on his vacation.
earned approximately $7,000 less than in 1978. He resigned in mid-1980.
evidence adduced in light of the production burdens borne.
decisions which, starting with McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S.
Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 101 S.Ct.
1089, 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1980).
him because of his age, he would not (have suffered the action)." Spagnuolo v.
Whirlpool Corp., 641 F.2d at 1112 (citing to Loeb, 600 F.2d at 1019).
one: whether the employee "was (treated unfavorably) because of his age."
created presumptions or inferences related to the evidence.
suggested by citations to Loeb ).
someone to perform the same work. Loeb, 600 F.2d at 1014; see also Smith v.
defendant the burden of producing evidence on the issue. Id. at 254, 101 S.Ct.
the plaintiff was (disfavored) ... for a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason." Id.
mandatory inference." Burdine, 450 U.S. at 255 n.10, 101 S.Ct. at 1095 n.10.
the claim upon a proper motion for directed verdict or judgment n. o. v.
the ultimate motivational issue is to be assessed, and to that we now turn.
Reflecting a general difficulty encountered by all courts, see 9 C. Wright & A.
for Federal Courts, 55 Minn.L.Rev. 903 (1971).
suffice to allow jury consideration.
inference is so tenuous that it rests merely upon speculation and conjecture." Id.
Again, in Wratchford v. S. J. Groves & Sons Co., 405 F.2d 1061, 1066 (4th Cir.
should not be submitted for jury consideration.
unfounded claims"); Galloway v. United States, 319 U.S. 372, 395, 63 S.Ct.
and justifies the special emphasis.
its application in the instant case we now turn.
would not have been demoted. See Loeb, 600 F.2d at 1017 & n.18.
claimant does not seem seriously to suggest that there was.
101 S.Ct. at 1095 n.10.
from plaintiff's attempted proof was any substantial evidence, see Houser v.
the inference that but for claimant's age he would not have been demoted.
The first question here, of course, is whether the presumption was invoked.
action but age discrimination. Cf. International Brotherhood of Teamsters v.
whether defendant carried its burden to dispel the mandatory presumption.
legitimate one. Cf. Loeb, 600 F.2d at 1011-12, n.5.
possible explanations, discrimination is the "more likely." Id. at 256, 101 S.Ct.
claimant's age he would not have been demoted.
essentially unrefuted. See Smith v. Flax, 618 F.2d at 1066-67.
Taken all together-whether offered directly to establish the "qualification"
from evidence that does no more than suggest it as a possibility.
not the outright discharge, of a single employee at the end of this extended plot.
properly granted judgment n. o. v.
ALBERT V. BRYAN, Senior Circuit Judge, concurs in the result.
discrimination issue is, however, a different matter. See note 13, infra.
presumption was originally devised in relation to the "basically qualified"
judgment for the plaintiff because no issue of fact remains in the case.").
Loeb, 600 F.2d at 1013 n.9.
"testimony was conclusory and lacked specific factual examples," id.
The case of a 40-year old manager in defendant's Knoxville store was cited.
manager might want also to consider such a move.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v.

 V.