Opinion ID: 10044
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Magnolia initially asserts that the district court erred in denying its motion for judgment as a matter of law. Jury verdicts are tested for sufficiency under the standard articulated in Boeing Co. v. Shipman, 411 F.2d 365, 374-75 (5th Cir. 1969). See Rhodes v. Guiberson Oil Tools, 75 F.3d 989, 993 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc). A motion for judgment as a matter of law should be granted only [i]f the facts and inferences point so strongly and overwhelmingly in favor of one party that the Court believes that reasonable men could not arrive at a contrary verdict. Boeing, 411 F.2d at 374. A conflict in substantial evidence must exist to give rise to a jury question. Id. at 374-75. A plaintiff may use either direct or circumstantial evidence to prove intentional discrimination. See Portis v. First Nat'l Bank of New Albany, Miss., 34 F.3d 325, 328 (5th Cir. 1994). Direct evidence is evidence that, if believed, proves the fact of intentional discrimination without inference or presumption. Id. at 328-29. Absent direct evidence, a plaintiff may prove age discrimination under the framework articulated in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-04, 93 S. Ct. 1817, 1824-25, 36 L. Ed.2d 668 (1973).3 In a RIF case, a prima facie case is 3 Although McDonnell Douglas is a Title VII case, we have previously held that its framework is applicable to ADEA cases. See Bodenheimer v. PPG Indus., Inc., 5 F.3d 955, 957 n.4 (5th Cir. 1993). The framework involves a burden-shifting analysis: (1) the plaintiff must demonstrate a prima facie case of discrimination; (2) the burden of production shifts to the employer to establish a legitimate and nondiscriminatory basis for the adverse employment decision; and (3) the plaintiff must then prove by a preponderance 3 established by evidence that (1) the plaintiff is within the protected age group under the ADEA; (2) he or she was adversely affected by the employer's decision; (3) he or she was qualified to assume another position at the time of the discharge or demotion; and (4) evidence, either circumstantial or direct, from which a factfinder might reasonably conclude that the employer intended to discriminate in reaching its decision. Nichols v. Loral Vought Sys. Corp., 81 F.3d 38, 41 (5th Cir. 1996); Molnar v. Ebasco Constructors, Inc., 986 F.2d 115, 118 (5th Cir. 1993); Thornbrough v. Columbus & Greenville R.R. Co., 760 F.2d 633, 642 (5th Cir. 1985). Although Magnolia argues that Woodhouse failed to make out a prima facie case of age discrimination, this is not the correct focus of our review. When a case has been fully tried on the merits, the adequacy of the showing at any stage of the McDonnell Douglas framework is unimportant; rather, the reviewing court must determine whether there was sufficient evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could have concluded that age discrimination occurred. Weaver v. Amoco Prod. Co., 66 F.3d 85, 87 (5th Cir. 1995); Armendariz v. Pinkerton Tobacco Co., 58 F.3d 144, 149 (5th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, U.S. , 116 S. Ct. 709, 133 L. Ed.2d 664 (1996). To make this determination, we must examine the sufficiency of both the direct and circumstantial evidence to support the jury verdict that the employer used age as a of the evidence that the employer's proffered reason is pretext. McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802-04, 93 S. Ct. at 1824-25; Portis, 34 F.3d at 328 n.7. 4 determinative factor in making the adverse employment decision. See Rhodes, 75 F.3d at 993-94. Although age need not be the sole reason for the adverse employment decision, it must actually play a role in the employer's decisionmaking process and have a determinative influence on the outcome. Id. at 994 (citing Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604, 610, 113 S. Ct. 1701, 1706, 123 L. Ed.2d 338 (1993)). There is no dispute that Woodhouse was discharged as a result of a RIF. The parties, however, disagree about the necessity of the RIF and the motive for Woodhouse's discharge. Although several witnesses testified that the $1.2 million loss was a significant financial setback for the hospital, a former assistant administrator called by Woodhouse, Robert Barrett, testified that revenue was higher in 1993 than in 1992. Barrett admitted, however, that the $1.2 million loss was quite substantial. Furthermore, Woodhouse also presented evidence that the hospital subsequently rehired more employees than it had laid off: at the time of the RIF, Magnolia had approximately 705 employees, while at the time of trial, the hospital employed 741 individuals. Two witnesses, who had also been discharged, testified that Magnolia called them back to work within two days of the RIF. Although a reasonable jury could conclude that the RIF was a ruse to terminate old or unwanted employees, it was not essential that the jury make such a determination in order for it to conclude that Magnolia discriminated against Woodhouse on the basis of her age. [T]he ADEA does not require that an employer prove that it is in fact losing money before it can take a nondiscriminatory and 5 legitimate course of action to make more. Armendariz, 58 F.3d at 152. And it is clear that the employer's adverse financial condition will render the discharge not inherently suspect. Thornbrough, 760 F.2d at 642. Instead, what is suspicious in reduction-in-force cases is that the employer fired a qualified, older employee but retained younger ones. If we focus not on why employees, in general, were discharged . . . but instead on why the plaintiff rather than another employee was discharged, the discharge of an older employee rather than a younger one is initially unexplained. Under these circumstances, requiring the employer to articulate reasons for his decision to fire the plaintiff is appropriate. Id. Thus, the crucial inquiry involves Magnolia's proffered reasons why Woodhouse was chosen for termination and why it refused to rehire her as a clinical nurse. In the instant cause, Woodhouse presented evidence that Dr. Tommy Alexander, Chairman of Magnolia's Board of Trustees and a practicing gynecologist, and Vicky Franks, an employee in the business office who was also terminated, discussed the impending terminations two weeks before the RIF. According to Franks, Alexander advised her that Magnolia was planning to lay off the older employees. Eight months later, Franks called Alexander and surreptitiously taped a subsequent conversation. The tape contained the following admission: FRANKS: You know back in January when I came in for my pap smear . . . . [A]nd I told you I thought I was having stress headaches from being worried about being laid off, and you said, don't worry about being laid off, you're not gonna get laid off. They're gonna lay off those old people and the people that needed done beenSQ ALEXANDER: That's what they told me. At trial, Alexander testified that he did not remember making the 6 statement and that no one ever told him Magnolia was planning to discharge older employees. Despite Alexander's contention that he did not remember making the statement, the jury was entitled to believe that Alexander told Franks that the hospital intended to discharge older employees through the RIF. See Ray v. Iuka Special Mun. Separate Sch. Dist., 51 F.3d 1246, 1251 (5th Cir. 1995) (noting that assessment of the credibility of witnesses is a jury function); Boeing, 411 F.3d at 375 ([I]t is the function of the jury as the traditional finder of the facts, and not the Court, to weigh conflicting evidence and inferences, and determine the credibility of the witnesses.). Magnolia asserts that Alexander's statement is insufficient to raise a jury issue on age discrimination because it was merely a stray remark. See Armendariz, 58 F.3d at 153 (concluding that remarks that are vague or remote in time will not support an age discrimination claim). In contrast to the various cases cited by Magnolia, Alexander's statement was neither remote in time nor vague. He admitted on tape that he told Franks in January that [t]hey're gonna lay off those old people. The RIF occurred on January 24, 1994. The remark was more direct than any of the comments in the cases Magnolia cites4SQit specifically indicated 4 See Waggoner v. City of Garland, Tex., 987 F.2d 1160, 1166 (5th Cir. 1993) (statement that a younger person could do faster work and reference to plaintiff as an old fart insufficient to establish age discrimination); Turner v. North Am. Rubber, Inc., 979 F.2d 55, 59 (5th Cir. 1992) (comment that plaintiff was being sent three young tigers to assist with operations was insufficient to show discrimination because the comments were vague and too remote in time); Guthrie v. Tifco Indus., 941 F.2d 374, 378-79 (5th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 908, 112 S. Ct. 1267, 117 L. Ed.2d 495 (1992) (outgoing president's comment that 7 that Magnolia intended to use age as a factor in its decision of which positions to eliminate. We refuse to hold that this statement is insufficient to raise a jury issue on age discrimination. Magnolia argues that Alexander was not involved in the decision concerning which positions would be eliminated because the Board had delegated that responsibility to the administrative staff. See Nichols, 81 F.3d at 40-41 (concluding that allegedly discriminatory remarks are not probative unless they are made by the relevant decisionmaker). Although Magnolia asserts that Alexander had no role in the decision, the evidence indicates that the Board developed the parameters of the RIF, and the administrative staff then made the final policy concerning which positions would be eliminated. Prior to implementing the RIF, a final report was made to the Board which outlined the positions to be eliminated and the employees to be discharged. Thus, Alexander was involved in the RIF decision, even though he was not involved in the specific determination of who would be discharged. Magnolia further points to the fact that the they alluded to in Alexander's statement, that's what they told me, were never identified. The inability to identify these individuals does not compel the conclusion that the jury could assign no probative weight to the statement. See Ray, 51 F.3d at 1250 & n.1 (witness the new president need[ed] to surround himself with people his age insufficient to establish age discrimination); Elliot v. Group Medical & Surgical Serv., 714 F.2d 556, 565 (5th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1215, 104 S. Ct. 2658, 81 L. Ed.2d 364 (1984) (employer's statement that he wanted new blood and a lean and mean team did not show age discrimination). 8 testified that an unidentified school board member made the comment that the board would not rehire the plaintiff because he had filed an EEOC claim against the district). The jury could reasonably infer that they referred to the administrative staff, which was accountable to the Board and to whom the Board had delegated the responsibility for determining the positions to be eliminated, given that all evidence indicated that they were the persons directly involved in the elimination decision. See Boeing, 411 F.2d at 374 (court should consider the evidence and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from it). Magnolia does not argue that Alexander's statement was inadmissible; rather, it merely asserts various reasons why the statement should be discounted or discredited. These arguments are more suitably made to the jury because it is charged with weighing the evidence. Id. at 375. The jury was presented conflicting evidence on this issue; the jury apparently chose to believe that Alexander made the statement and that Magnolia intended to use age as one criteria in its discharge decision. We conclude that the jury could properly consider the statement as evidence that Magnolia intentionally discriminated against Woodhouse because of her age. Evidence was also presented that Magnolia developed a new policy for the RIF, rather than rely on the policy outlined in its employee handbook. Benny Brewster, one of the administrators involved in the elimination decision, conceded that the list of job titles could be manipulated to allow Magnolia to discharge any employee simply by eliminating his or her position; he denied, 9 however, that the administrative staff engaged in such manipulation in order to terminate old or unwanted employees. Despite Magnolia's assertion that the evidence established that the new policy envisioned that the elimination decision would be made solely by the administrators without consulting the department heads, Brewster testified by deposition that the administrators reviewed the elimination decision with each department head to insure that what we were presenting to them was, I guess, the best way to do it, or these particular jobs going to be eliminated. If they agreed to it, they assigned the people to that position.5 He also admitted that the department heads would be more aware than the administrators of whether a position was necessary to the hospital. Contrary to Brewster's deposition testimony, Jerry Knighton, Woodhouse's department head, testified that he was never consulted about the decision to eliminate her position as Director of Nursing. Knighton stated that Woodhouse's position was necessary, and that if he had been consulted he would have advised the administrators not to eliminate her position. Interestingly, Magnolia was unable to clearly identify either the person who made the decision to eliminate Woodhouse's position or the process by which Woodhouse's position was chosen for elimination. 5 At trial, Brewster testified that the administrators decided what positions would be eliminated and that he had been mistaken in stating during the deposition that the department heads were consulted. The jury, of course, was not required to believe that Brewster was mistaken when he testified that the policy envisioned that the department heads would be consulted before the final termination decisions were made. 10 Woodhouse also points to evidence that she was not rehired as a clinical nurse after her termination even though Magnolia had hired seventy-six nurses by the time of the trial. Magnolia presented evidence at trial that it refused to employ Woodhouse because she had not been a clinical nurse for fourteen years and had taken no refresher courses in the interim. No one at Magnolia ever informed Woodhouse that she needed to take a refresher course if she wanted employment as a clinical nurse. According to Magnolia's witness, Linda Whitenton, the Director of Nursing Services, Woodhouse was not qualified to serve as a clinical nurse because she lacked recent experience. Whitenton testified that the Mississippi Board of Nursing required that Woodhouse take a refresher course in clinical nursing. When asked where this requirement was found in the state statutes, Whitenton stated that it was found in a nursing newsletter. In rebuttal, Woodhouse testified that the refresher course requirement only pertained to nurses who did not have a current license. At the time Woodhouse applied for a nursing position, she had a valid license. A recent graduate of a nursing school testified that she had never heard of the refresher requirement and had been taught that a nurse would be able to practice as long as you kept up your license and had hours in either supervisory positions or position as a floor nurse. Alexander, Brewster, and at least one nurse also testified that they knew of no reason why Woodhouse could not be hired as a clinical nurse. See Thornbrough, 760 F.2d at 642 (plaintiff can show discrimination in a RIF case by establishing, inter alia, that she was qualified to assume another 11 position at the time of discharge). Woodhouse also presented evidence that none of the nurses hired were her age or older. Thus, conflicting evidence was introduced on the issue of whether the refusal to rehire Woodhouse was based on her qualifications. The jury was thus entitled to find that the refresher requirement was a pretext for discrimination. See Rhodes, 75 F.3d at 994 (noting that [i]n tandem with a prima facie case, the evidence allowing rejection of the employer's proffered reasons will often, perhaps usually, permit a finding of discrimination without additional evidence). The evidence was hotly disputed in this case. Woodhouse presented much more than a scintilla of evidence to support her age discrimination claim. In this instance, the case was properly submitted to the jury, which weighed the evidence and found against Magnolia. After reviewing the evidence under the standard articulated in Boeing, 411 F.2d at 374-75, we conclude that the district court properly denied Magnolia's motion for judgment as a matter of law.6