Opinion ID: 813444
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Legal Framework for ADEA Claims

Text: The District Court analyzed the motion for summary judgment under the analysis set out in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). Under the McDonnell Douglas framework, the plaintiff bears the burdens of persuasion and production to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination. 3 Smith v. City of Allentown, 589 F.3d 684, 689 (3d Cir. 2009). After the plaintiff satisfies this 3 A plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADEA if he provides proof that: 1) the plaintiff was forty years of age or older; 2) that the plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action; 3) that the plaintiff was qualified for the job; and 4) that the plaintiff was replaced by someone who was sufficiently younger than plaintiff to support an inference of discriminatory animus. Smith v. City of Allentown, 589 F.3d 684, 689 (3d Cir. 2009). 6 requirement, the burden of production, but not persuasion, shifts to the defendant to provide evidence of a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for the adverse employment action. Keller v. Orix Credit Alliance, Inc., 130 F.3d 1101, 1108 (3d Cir. 1997). If the defendant provides this evidence, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to demonstrate that the defendant’s justification was a pretext for discriminatory animus. City of Allentown, 589 F.3d at 691. The plaintiff always has the burden of persuasion. Id. The plaintiff may demonstrate that the defendant’s legitimate nondiscriminatory reason is pretextual by submitting evidence that allows a fact finder to either 1) disbelieve or discredit the employer’s justification; or 2) believe discrimination was more likely than not a “but for” cause of the adverse employment action. Fuentes v. Perksie, 32 F.3d 759, 764 (3d Cir. 1994); see also Keller, 130 F.3d at 1108 (applying Fuentes in ADEA context). Regardless of the method, the plaintiff’s evidence must allow a reasonable jury to find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that age discrimination was a “but for” cause for the adverse employment action. Gross v. FBL Financial Servs., Inc., 557 U.S. 167, 177-78 (2009); City of Allentown, 589 F.3d at 691. Abels argues on appeal that the District Court erred in finding that Abels did not discredit DISH’s legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for its decision to treat Abels’ conduct as a voluntary resignation.