Opinion ID: 740798
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Reduction in Force

Text: 8 Mr. Buchanan is unable to prevail under either approach on his reduction-in-force claims. During a reduction-in-force, a plaintiff is typically laid off, and thus may not be able to establish replacement by a younger person. Branson v. Price River Coal Co., 853 F.2d 768, 771 (10th Cir.1988) (evidence that employer fired qualified older employees but retained younger employees satisfies prima facie case). We thus modify the fourth element to allow Mr. Buchanan to  'produc[e] evidence, circumstantial or direct, from which a fact finder might reasonably conclude that the employer intended to discriminate in reaching the decision at issue.'  Id. (quoting Williams v. General Motors Corp., 656 F.2d 120, 129 (5th Cir.1981)). 9 Given these elements, Mr. Buchanan cannot establish a prima facie case. First, there is no evidence in the record that Mr. Buchanan is a member of the protected age group, that is, over forty years of age. See 29 U.S.C. § 631(a). Even assuming, arguendo, that Mr. Buchanan is a member of the protected age group, he still cannot establish the fourth element of a prima facie case. 10 In particular, Mr. Buchanan has presented no direct or circumstantial evidence from which the fact finder might reasonably conclude that Dayton intended to discriminate when it initiated the reduction-in-force policy. There is no evidence that Mr. Buchanan was treated less favorably than younger employees during Dayton's reorganization. In fact, the record indicates that in Mr. Buchanan's duties were assigned to Mr. G.J. Kinder, who was 51 at the time of the reassignment and appears to be older than Mr. Buchanan. 1 Aplt's App. at 12, 23. This evidence does not support Mr. Buchanan's contentions that age was a factor in Dayton's reduction in force. 2 11 Under the direct or circumstantial evidence approach, Mr. Buchanan fares no better. This approach requires Mr. Buchanan to present evidence, direct or circumstantial, from which the fact finder might reasonably conclude that Dayton intended to discriminate on the basis of age in initiating the reduction-in-force policy, he might establish a reduction in force claim based on age discrimination. Greene, 98 F.3d at 557. As established above, Mr. Buchanan has presented no direct evidence of Dayton's intent to discriminate against him. In addition, Mr. Buchanan has introduced no evidence that there was a pattern of discrimination against other members of the protected class, which might have bolstered his own claim. See Greene, 98 F.3d at 560-61 (recogniz[ing] the relevance and force of such evidence of a pattern of discrimination).