Opinion ID: 808697
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Ostrow’s Employment at GlobeCast

Text: Beginning in 2003, Ostrow worked for GlobeCast as Vice President of Business and Legal Affairs and General Counsel. Ostrow handled litigation, supervised outside counsel, offered legal advice and risk management, prepared corporate documents and sometimes performed other transactional work, such as negotiating and drafting contracts. Ostrow also supervised one other in-house 1 The parties consented to proceeding before a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 2 We review the grant of summary judgment de novo, “applying the same legal standards as the district court.” Chapman v. AI Transport, 229 F.3d 1012, 1023 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc). “[S]ummary judgment is appropriate if the evidence before the court shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact.” Id. (quotation marks omitted); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). In making this determination, we view the evidence, and all inferences reasonably drawn therefrom, in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Maniccia v. Brown, 171 F.3d 1364, 1367 (11th Cir. 1999). 2 Case: 11-16043 Date Filed: 09/17/2012 Page: 3 of 13 attorney, who primarily prepared customer contracts. By December 2008, however, that in-house attorney position was vacant. On June 8, 2009, GlobeCast hired 37-year-old Carlo Carroccia to be the new in-house attorney without consulting Ostrow. Carroccia had experience as a contracts attorney with telecommunications companies, and his duties at GlobeCast were to include preparing contracts and assisting the sales department in New York. Carroccia’s offer letter indicated, however, that there was a possibility of promotion to the general counsel position depending on his performance. In November 2009, GlobeCast’s new CEO, David Justin, informed Ostrow, then 60 years old, that his employment contract would not be renewed when it expired on December 31, 2009. In January 2010, Carroccia was promoted into Ostrow’s former job. B. Magistrate Judge’s Summary Judgment Ruling For purposes of summary judgment, GlobeCast conceded that Ostrow established a prima facie case of age discrimination. Applying the McDonnell Douglas framework,3 the magistrate judge found that GlobeCast had put forth two legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for CEO Justin’s decision not renew 3 McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S. Ct. 1817 (1973). 3 Case: 11-16043 Date Filed: 09/17/2012 Page: 4 of 13 Ostrow’s employment contract: (1) Justin wanted to restructure the legal department to save costs due to GlobeCast’s poor financial condition; and (2) Justin believed that Ostrow’s performance had been deficient. The magistrate judge concluded that Ostrow presented evidence of pretext as to Ostrow’s performance, but not as to GlobeCast’s decision to restructure the legal department for financial reasons. See Chapman v. AI Transport, 229 F.3d 1012, 1037 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (explaining that the plaintiff must present evidence that each of the employer’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons is pretextual to avoid summary judgment). Thus, the district court granted GlobeCast’s motion for summary judgment as to the ADEA claim.4