Opinion ID: 1922397
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Prima Facie Cases

Text: A plaintiff must prove a prima facie case in the first step of the McDonnell Douglas analysis. Barros, 710 A.2d at 685. The prima facie case in an age discrimination analysis based upon a termination [4] is: (1) she was at least forty years of age; (2) her job performance met the employer's legitimate expectations; (3) the employer subjected her to an adverse employment action ( e.g., an actual or constructive discharge); and (4) the employer had a continuing need for the services provided by the position from which the claimant was discharged. Ramírez Rodríguez v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmacueticals, Inc., 425 F.3d 67, 78 n. 11 (1st Cir.2005); cf. Casey v. Town of Portsmouth, 861 A.2d 1032, 1037 (R.I.2004) (reciting the prima facie case in a failure to hire age discrimination analysis). Similarly, the prima facie case in a gender discrimination analysis based upon a termination is: (1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she was performing her job at a level that rules out the possibility that she was fired for inadequate job performance; (3) she suffered an adverse job action by her employer; and (4) her employer sought a replacement for her with roughly equivalent qualifications. DeCamp v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., 875 A.2d 13, 21 (R.I.2005) (quoting Smith v. Stratus Computer, Inc., 40 F.3d 11, 15 (1st Cir.1994)). Concerning the first element of a prima facie case of gender discrimination, every person is in a class protected against gender discrimination. Id. at 22 n. 7 (quoting Williams v. Raytheon Co., 220 F.3d 16, 19 (1st Cir.2000)). Proving a prima facie case is not especially onerous. Barros, 710 A.2d at 685. A prima facie case gives rise to a [rebuttable] presumption that the employer unlawfully discriminated against the employee. Id. Turning to this case, plaintiff, a woman who was fifty-three years old at the time she was terminated, is clearly a member of the classes protected from age and gender discrimination. The plaintiff alleged in her second amended complaint, and defendant admitted in its answer, that her job performance was at least satisfactory. In eliminating her position, defendant unquestionably adversely affected plaintiff's employment. Finally, there is evidence to suggest that another manager at the call center, who had worked for defendant before plaintiff was terminated, assumed plaintiff's duties by working hours similar to the hours that plaintiff worked prior to her termination. [5] The prima facie cases of age and gender discrimination are supported by the facts of this case. 2