Opinion ID: 2746806
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Ms. Hutchins’s Employment and Eventual Firing

Text: Ms. Hutchins worked for Cessna from 1978 to 2012. Toward the end, she worked in the Finance Department as a Finance Business Partner. Her supervisor was Michele Gifford. Ms. Gifford ultimately fired Ms. Hutchins, telling her that she could stay in the Finance Department for only 30 more days while she looked for other jobs within the company. Ms. Hutchins did not apply for any other jobs at Cessna. Accordingly, Cessna terminated her. She attributed the firing to age discrimination, suing Cessna under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.1 Cessna moved for summary judgment, setting forth a statement of facts. In this statement, Cessna said 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.”2 Ms. Hutchins responded: “UNCONTROVERTED — as self-servingly [sic] stated [sic] by current employees who would never testify against their own economic interests. However, it is simple math for them to determine or know that a person who has worked at an employer, who, by law cannot employ a person under the age of 18, would be nearing the age of 55. (18+34=52)”3 1 Ms. Hutchins also alleged violation of the Employment Retirement Income Security Act, but that claim is not at issue on appeal. 2 Appellant’s App. at 297. 3 Appellant’s App. at 297. 2 Based on this admission, the district court held that Ms. Hutchins had not established a genuine issue of material fact regarding pretext.4 Accordingly, the district court granted summary judgment to Cessna.