Opinion ID: 8462
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Background on the ADEA

Text: The ADEA makes it unlawful to discriminate against an individual over 40 years of age with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of such individual's age. 29 U.S.C. § 623(a). Given that the instant 2 Crim does not appeal the district court's grant of summary judgment on his Title VII and punitive damages claims. 3 case relies on circumstantial evidence to prove discrimination, we analyze it according to the three-part test enunciated in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.E.2d 668 (1973). Initially, the employee must set forth a prima facie case demonstrating that he or she 1) was within the protected class of the ADEA; 2) was adversely affected by the employment decision; 3) was qualified for the position at the time of the adverse decision; and 4) was replaced by someone younger or was otherwise discharged because of his or her age. Bodenheimer, 5 F.3d at 957. The establishment of the prima facie case creates a rebuttable presumption that the employer unlawfully discriminated against the employee. Id. The employer may then rebut the presumption by articulating a legitimate, non-discriminatory business reason for its action. Id. If the employer articulates such a reason, the burden reverts back to the employee. He or she must then prove the employer's reason was only a pretext for discrimination. Id. To prevail ultimately, the employee must present sufficient evidence from which a reasonable fact-finder could infer that the employer's articulated reason was false and that discrimination was the true reason for the adverse employment decision. St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, __ U.S. __, 113 S.Ct. 2742, 2750, 125 L.E.2d 407 (1993). The employee must present proof that age motivated the employer's action, otherwise the law has been converted from one preventing discrimination because of age to ensuring dismissals only for 'just cause' to all people over 4 40. Bienkowski v. American Airlines, Inc., 851 F.2d 1503, 1508 n.6 (5th Cir. 1988). Accordingly, at the summary judgment stage, we must assess whether [the employee] tendered factual evidence that would lead a jury to reasonably conclude that [the employer's] reasons are a pretext for age discrimination. Bodenheimer, 5 F.3d at 958. We conclude Crim has not presented such evidence, and thus affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment.