Opinion ID: 199695
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Admission of Age-related Remark by Yankowski

Text: 40 Nalco contends that the Yankowski statement -- [w]e can't have a man in his sixties sitting on his accounts coasting. . . . [w]e need to get a young rep in there selling new business -- was irrelevant to the issue of age animus, because Walton did not prove that Yankowski played any decision making role in the discharge. 17 41 Evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion. Invest Almaz v. Temple-Inland Forest Prods. Corp., 243 F.3d 57, 69 (1st Cir. 2001). Evidence that discriminatory remarks were made by persons in a position to influence the challenged employment action may suffice to establish pretext. See, e.g., Straughn v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 250 F.3d 23, 35 (1st Cir. 2001). The jury was entitled to disbelieve the trial testimony that Richard Murphy unilaterally discharged Walton without consultation or input from Yankowski, who was one of Walton's superiors and the vice president for Nalco's eastern sales division. See Febres v. Challenger Caribbean Corp., 214 F.3d 57, 60-61 (1st Cir. 2000). Yankowski initiated not only the conversations regarding Walton's retirement plans, but also the telltale age-related anecdotes. Moreover, when Walton's attorney advised Yankowski of the age-discrimination claims, it was Yankowski who directed Carney to administer the so-called Personnel Regeneration Form to Walton, see supra, whose grossly inaccurate results strongly suggested a pretextual basis for the Walton discharge. Three months after the Personnel Regeneration Form was administered to Walton, his employment was terminated. 42 The jury reasonably could have inferred, without difficulty, that Yankowski played a pivotal role in the termination decision implemented by Vice-President Murphy, and that the statement Yankowski made to Ray Field, see supra note 3, was both directly related and temporally proximate to the challenged employment action. See Fernandes v. Costa Bros. Masonry, Inc., 199 F.3d 572, 583 (1st Cir. 1999) (observing that comment by decision maker -- I don't have to hire you locals or Cape Verdean people -- was not mere stray remark where employer refused to rehire people of Cape Verdean descent). 18 The district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the Yankowski testimony.