Opinion ID: 2746806
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Ms. Hutchins’s ADEA Claim

Text: The ADEA prohibits an employer from terminating any employee on the basis of age.11 To establish a prima facie case of age discrimination, a plaintiff must show: (1) she is a member of the protected class, (2) she suffered an adverse employment action, (3) she was qualified for the position at issue, and (4) she was treated less favorably than others not in the protected class.12 Cessna does not question the existence of a prima facie case of age discrimination, and Ms. Hutchins does not question whether Cessna proffered a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the termination.13 Consequently, the appeal turns on the third step in the McDonnell-Douglas analysis: Was Cessna’s proffered reason a pretext for discrimination? 9 McDonnell-Douglas, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973). 10 McDonnell-Douglas, 411 U.S. 792, 802-03 (1973). 11 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(1). 12 Jones v. Okla. City Pub. Schs., 617 F.3d 1273, 1279 (10th Cir. 2010). 13 Order at 13 (citing Bertsch v. Overstock.com, 684 F.3d 1023, 1029 (10th Cir. 2012)). 4 The reason given was pretextual only if Ms. Hutchins shows that age discrimination provided a more likely explanation or that Cessna’s explanation was not credible.14 To survive a summary judgment motion, Ms. Hutchins had to provide more than mere conjecture regarding Cessna’s underlying motivation.15 The district court held that Ms. Hutchins could not establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding pretext because she admitted that age was not considered in her termination.16 We agree. Ms. Hutchins admitted that “[a]t the time the decision was made to terminate [her], neither Gifford, Manuel, or Poulson were aware of, nor did they consider, [Ms. Hutchins]’s age.”17 With this admission, the fact-finder could not reasonably infer any consideration of age in Cessna’s decision to fire Ms. Hutchins. Therefore, Ms. Hutchins cannot prove age discrimination. Ms. Hutchins downplays her concession, asserting that the district court ignored the self-serving nature of Cessna’s stated fact.18 Even if the fact was self-serving, Ms. Hutchins admitted it. Notwithstanding that admission, Ms. Hutchins describes the evidence she would present to a jury if given the opportunity. This discussion is irrelevant. Ms. Hutchins had no right to present evidence to a jury unless she established a genuine issue of material 14 Rea v. Martin Marietta Corp., 29 F.3d 1450, 1455 (10th Cir. 1994). 15 Santana v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 488 F.3d 860, 864-65 (10th Cir. 2007). 16 Order at 13. 17 Appellant’s App. at 297. 18 Appellant’s Opening Br. at 10. 5 fact regarding pretext. She did not do that. Instead, she conceded the issue of pretext by admitting that age had played no role in Cessna’s decision to terminate her employment.