Opinion ID: 150007
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Direct Evidence of Discriminatory Animus

Text: Moss's final argument is that remarks by Stallworth serve as direct evidence of age discrimination. Specifically, Moss asserts that Stallworth's comment that she was searching for a lawyer at a more junior level than herself functions as direct evidence of discrimination. BMC claims that Stallworth's comment was facially neutral and not probative of age discrimination. In some ADEA cases, evidence of pretext is not needed. Rachid v. Jack in the Box, Inc., 376 F.3d 305, 312 (5th Cir.2004). In Rachid, for example, the plaintiff presented evidence that the decision maker told the plaintiff . . . you're too old. Id. at 315. The court held that such comments preclude summary judgment because a rational trier of fact could conclude that age played a role in [the employer's] decision to terminate [plaintiff]. Id. at 315-16. However, this court has also repeatedly held that `stray remarks' do not demonstrate age discrimination. EEOC v. Texas Instruments, Inc., 100 F.3d 1173, 1181 (5th Cir.1996). In order for an age-based comment to be probative of an employer's discriminatory intent, it must be direct and unambiguous, allowing a reasonable jury to conclude without any inferences or presumptions that age was an impermissible factor in the decision to terminate the employee. Id. (citing Bodenheimer, 5 F.3d at 958). Remarks may serve as sufficient evidence of age discrimination if they are: 1) age related, 2) proximate in time to the employment decision, 3) made by an individual with authority over the employment decision at issue, and 4) related to the employment decision at issue. Medina v. Ramsey Steel Co., Inc., 238 F.3d 674, 683 (5th Cir.2001). Stallworth testified that her statement relating to hiring someone at a more junior level referenced the need to hire an attorney at a lower level in the organization, as opposed to the age of the desired candidate. She explained that after her role changed and her responsibilities increased at BMC, the Staff Legal Counsel position was created to assume some of her previous responsibilities, but that they did not necessarily need someone with [her] level of general experience as [she] would be available to get involved in major matters if needed. As BMC notes, in this context more junior level could very well refer to an older individual who went to law school later in life or otherwise had less experience, who would come into the position at a more junior level than Stallworth. In fact, Moss himself characterizes the position as effectively an entry level position. After reviewing the record, we conclude that Stallworth's comment was consistent with the evidence regarding the position, the proposed salary of $8,000-$11,000 per month, and the hierarchy of BMC's legal department. Stallworth's comment was not direct and unambiguous or even age-related, and therefore not probative of [BMC's] discriminatory intent. Texas Instruments, Inc., 100 F.3d at 1181.