Opinion ID: 2516473
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Plaintiff's Claims and the Undisputed Evidence

Text: Plaintiff appears to assert that there is direct evidence of age discrimination because she was singled out for criticism of her grooming, and that such criticism, taken together with Perreira's comment that Gucci was aiming for a younger look, amounts to direct evidence of age discrimination. Alternatively, Plaintiff maintains that she has adduced indirect evidence from which a trier of fact could reasonably infer that such discrimination had occurred and that Gucci's asserted reasons for terminating her were pretextual. As discussed above, a defendant in an age discrimination case will prevail if the defendant can articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment action. In this case, there is undisputed evidence that Plaintiff was not performing her job in a satisfactory manner. During the five and one-half months that Plaintiff worked for Gucci, Plaintiff was repeatedly tardy in reporting to work and faxing her inventory report to the warehouse. Plaintiff does not dispute that each store manager was required to fax their merchandise replacement needs to the Gucci warehouse on O`ahu no later than 8:00 a.m. each morning. The merchandise for the Maui store could then be shipped by plane from O`ahu on the same day. Plaintiff admitted that she failed to arrive at work early enough to meet the 8:00 a.m. deadline. Moreover, Plaintiff acknowledged that she often arrived at the store after 8:00 a.m. Although Plaintiff was reprimanded on numerous occasions for her tardiness, Plaintiff continued to arrive at the store later than 8:00 a.m. In addition, as noted above, Plaintiff failed to meet internal sales reporting deadlines, failed to follow Perreira's specific instructions, prepared documents that were not sufficiently detailed, and failed to adhere to Gucci's dress code. Under these circumstances, there does not appear to be a genuine issue of fact regarding Plaintiff's failure to perform the duties of store manager satisfactorily. Therefore, Defendants have articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the adverse employment action against Plaintiff. Plaintiff contends that Defendants' asserted reason for her termination, the alleged failure to satisfactorily perform her duties, was pretextual. Specifically, Plaintiff asserts that the uncontradicted evidence is that she never received a written citation from Perreira (or anyone else) for any of [the] alleged [misconduct] nor does her Employee Separation form reflect any of those things as a reason for her termination.... Despite Plaintiff's assertions, however, the fact that Plaintiff did not receive a written reprimand or that her separation form did not indicate the specific reasons for which she was terminated does not reasonably yield an inference that Defendants' reasons for terminating Plaintiff were pretextual. Although Plaintiff did not receive a written reprimand, it is uncontroverted that Plaintiff received numerous oral reprimands regarding numerous issues related to her performance. In any event, we cannot see how the mere absence of a written reprimand or the fact that Plaintiff's separation form does not indicate the precise reason for Plaintiff's termination could, in of themselves, reasonably create a genuine issue of material fact such as to defeat summary judgment. Although Plaintiff insists that the expert opinions of her economist, Thomas A. Loudat, Ph.D., adds more evidence of discrimination, we fail to see how such evidence would create an issue of fact that Defendants' proffered reasons for terminating Plaintiff were pretextual. Dr. Loudat's testimony in an affidavit attached to Plaintiff's motion in opposition to Gucci's motion for summary judgment merely states that: (1) there is a disproportionately larger number of younger individuals hired by Gucci or working as managers than in the United States' labor force in general; (2) on average, Gucci managers/assistant managers have a statistically significantly younger age relative to the labor force; and (3) Plaintiff was the oldest manager or assistant manager ever hired by Gucci in Hawai`i and the third oldest nationwide. Even taking Loudat's testimony to be true, Loudat's conclusions do not reasonably lead to an inference that Defendant's reasons for discharging Plaintiff were pretextual. The fact that Plaintiff, despite her age, was hired and fired by Perreira to begin with, casts doubt upon Plaintiff's theory that Defendants' reasons for termination were pretextual. In addition, Loudat's report does not indicate the average age of workers in the fashion industry and whether the average age of Gucci's workers is above or below the average age of workers in the fashion industry. Therefore, Loudat's report does not create a genuine issue of material fact with respect to whether Defendants' asserted reasons for termination were pretextual. Moreover, as discussed above, Perreira both hired and fired Plaintiff. Perreira hired Plaintiff because she believed that Plaintiff would be able to manage the store even without experience in the high-end fashion industry. After five and one-half months and repeated reprimands, however, Perreira concluded that Plaintiff would not be able to satisfactorily perform the duties required by the position. Although the fact that Perreira was the same actor is not conclusive for purposes of determining pretext, we are nonetheless left with the inference that Defendants' proffered reasons for terminating Plaintiff were not pretextual. Under these circumstances, we hold that Plaintiff has not met her burden of establishing that Defendants' articulated reason for taking adverse employment action against her was pretextual. Plaintiff has not alerted this court to any other evidence that would give rise to a genuine issue of material fact in this regard. Therefore, inasmuch as there are no genuine issues of material fact and Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the circuit court correctly granted summary judgment.