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

Heading: Crim's ADEA Claims

Text: Crim first contends the FDIC discriminated against him because of his age by not retaining him as a section chief in the merged Addison-Dallas office.3 In support, he presents the following evidence: 1. Seven of the eight section chiefs retained in the merged office were under forty years old. Two of the four section chiefs not retained were over 40. This disparity was noted by a counselor from the FDIC's Equal Opportunity Office (the EEO).
decision, Victor Robert, incorrectly stated on his spreadsheet comparing the qualifications of the candidates for retention as section chief, that Crim's supervisor had rated him poor rather than satisfactory.
Ester Vana during the EEO investigation. 3 As did the district court, we assume Crim has established a prima facie case. The FDIC articulated a non-discriminatory reason for its action. 5 This evidence is insufficient to establish a fact issue that the FDIC's reasons for not retaining Crim as a section chief were pretexts for age discrimination. First, Crim's statistical evidence does not establish an age discrimination claim because it only analyzes twelve employees. Statistical evidence on small groups of employees cannot be used to establish an employer's discriminatory intent.4 Haskell v. Kaman Corp., 743 F.2d 113, 121 (2d Cir. 1984) (collecting cases). Similarly, that an EEO counselor noted the statistics does not demonstrate the FDIC discriminated against Crim because of his age. Second, Crim's allegation that Robert's spreadsheet did not accurately reflect his supervisor's evaluation of him does not establish a pretext for age discrimination. Even if Robert's information was incorrect, Crim cannot demonstrate the FDIC's reasons for not retaining him were false. Robert relied on fourteen other factors in deciding which section chiefs to retain. Further, this evidence does not establish Crim's age was a determinative factor or even an influence in the FDIC's not retaining him. Indeed, Robert's initial consolidation plan did retain Crim as a section chief. However, the regional FDIC office rejected the plan and ordered further staff cuts. 4 Further, while the Fifth Circuit has recognized that gross statistical disparities may be used to establish discriminatory intent, Walter v. Lone Star Gas Co., 977 F.2d 161, 162 (5th Cir. 1992), Crim's statistics do not demonstrate a gross disparity. Eighty-three percent --ten out of twelve-- of the employees considered for retention as section chiefs were under age forty. Taking this fact into account, that the FDIC retained eighty-seven percent --seven out of eight-- of the under-forty employees does not demonstrate a gross disparity. 6 Third, Crim alleges that, because Robert did not provide the spreadsheet to the investigating EEO employee when initially requested, Robert fabricated the spreadsheet after the fact to justify his action. This speculation is insufficient to bar summary judgment. Travelers Ins. Co. v. Liljeberg Enterprises, Inc., 7 F.3d 1203 (5th Cir. 1993). Robert has given unrebutted sworn testimony that he prepared the spreadsheet before making his final decision. Fourth, the FDIC presented much uncontradicted evidence supporting its non-discriminatory reasons for not retaining Crim. Robert based his selections of which section chiefs to retain upon, inter alia, each candidate's experience in property management, technical expertise, leadership skills, aggressive management style, interaction with senior management, organizational skills, supervisory skills, and track record in a downsizing environment. One of Crim's supervisors, Kevie Beard, testified that Crim did not have experience in property management, did not have an aggressive management style, had inadequate leadership and management skills, and generally lacked the specialized knowledge and technical expertise for the available section chief positions. Overall, Beard gave Crim's qualifications the lowest rating. Robert also testified that Crim had inadequate leadership and management skills. Therefore, the district court properly granted summary judgment to the FDIC on Crim's failure-to-be-retained claim. 7 2. Failure to Promote to Grade 13 Crim's contention that the FDIC discriminated against him due to his age in failing to promote him to Grade 13 is also without merit. In support, Crim presents evidence that his supervisors told him he would at some time be considered for the promotion, that his promotion would not be prohibited by the FDIC's hiring freeze, and that one of Crim's supervisors, Jerry Bumbalough, thought he was qualified for the promotion. This evidence does not support a cause of action for age discrimination. To the extent Crim's failure-to-promote claim is based on his failure-to-retain claim, we have rejected his claim for failing to be retained as a section chief. We thus reject his claim for failing to be promoted. To the extent his failure-topromote claim is independent of his first claim, we find that Crim cannot establish a prima facie case of discrimination. See Ford v. General Motors Corp., 656 F.2d 117, 118 n.2 (5th Cir. 1981) (setting forth requirements for prima facie case for failure-topromote discrimination).5 He cannot demonstrate he was qualified for the promotion. Following the Addison-Dallas offices merger, Crim was no longer a section chief. He thus did not hold a position with the potential for a Grade 13 promotion. Further, 5 To establish a prima facie case for failure-to-promote discrimination, the employee must show: (1) that he was a member of the protected age group; (2) that he was not promoted to a given position; (3) that another person, generally outside the protected age category, was placed in the position at issue; and (4) that [the employee] was qualified to fill the position sought. Ford, 656 F.2d at 118 n.2. 8 even assuming Crim could establish a prima facie case, his evidence in no way indicates his age was a determinative factor in his not being promoted.