Opinion ID: 604145
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Circumstances of Moore's Termination

Text: 22 Moore next claims that the pretextual nature of Lilly's alleged reason for termination is obvious from the facts surrounding his termination. With this argument, Moore continues his attempt to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding Lilly's stated reason, insisting that it is a mere cover or pretext for illegal discrimination or that a discriminatory reason motivated [Lilly]. 30 23 Moore argues that six facts surrounding his termination (noting that the list could easily be continued) demonstrate Lilly's discriminatory intent. These facts, which for purposes of this review we assume to be true, are: (1) that Lilly has told inconsistent stories concerning the termination; (2) that Moore was terminated for falsifying records before Yelverton knew the elements of the offense; (3) that Yelverton varied Lilly's discharge procedures and disobeyed orders from his supervisors in deciding to terminate Moore; (4) that Moore was terminated for attempting to correct a situation caused by someone else's mistake; (5) that the sample accountability department only placed him on the daily log (a lesser penalty) but Yelverton decided to terminate him; and (6) that Yelverton shot first and asked questions later--making his inquiry only after he terminated Moore. Concerning these six assertions, the district court stated: While these conflicting accounts indicate a factual dispute as to exactly how Moore was terminated, their existence does not provide direct (or even indirect) proof that he was fired because of age. We agree. 24 Proof that an employer did not follow correct or standard procedures in the termination or demotion of an employee may well serve as the basis for a wrongful discharge action under state law. As we have stated, however, the ADEA was not created to redress wrongful discharge simply because the terminated worker was over the age of forty. 31 A discharge may well be unfair or even unlawful yet not be evidence of age bias under the ADEA. To make out an ADEA claim, the plaintiff must establish the existence of discrete facts that show some nexus between the employment actions taken by the employer and the employee's age. Here, there is no demonstrated connection other than Moore's bald assertion that one exists. That simply will not suffice. III