Opinion ID: 168784
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Age-Related Comm ents and Actions

Text: M r. M erritt also points to several age-related remarks and actions by Tellabs personnel. In addition to the Birck statement, he avers that M r. Bernstein and M r. Pullen promoted a youth movement by giving accolades to M r. M erritt’s younger colleagues, but not to him, and by conducting sales meetings geared to younger salespeople. He also notes that Edward Kennedy told him that M r. Pullen and M r. Bernstein perceived him to be part of the “‘old guard’” and that he “‘should possess more of the traits of this young Ben Shat.’” Aplt. Br. at 33 (quoting Aplt. A pp. II at 422-23). Given that M r. Birck’s statement reflects a personal opinion and that M r. Birck did not participate in terminating M r. M erritt’s employment, the district -9- court did not err in characterizing the Birck comment as a “stray remark” that does not satisfy M r. M erritt’s burden of production. “Isolated comments, unrelated to the challenged action, are insufficient to show discriminatory animus in termination decisions.” Cone v. Longmont United Hosp. Ass’n, 14 F.3d 526, 531 (10th Cir. 1994); see also Heno v. Sprint/United M gmt. Corp., 208 F.3d 847, 856 (10th Cir. 2000) (“[S]tray . . . comments should typically not be admitted unless the plaintiff can link them to personnel decisions or the individuals making those decisions.”). W ithout more, M r. M erritt’s subjective belief that he was within the class of “senior management” identified by M r. Birck does not establish the necessary link between comment and termination. Likew ise, M r. M erritt’s allegations about M r. Pullen’s and M r. Bernstein’s promoting a youth movement are too attenuated to show pretext in connection with the termination. M r. M erritt’s belief that the training sessions were inappropriate because the supervisors made statements like “what motivates you as a young man” and used other “touchy feely” phrases is his subjective opinion. Aplt. App., Vol. II at 306, ¶ 38; id., Vol. I at 76, ¶ 42. And given that M r. M erritt’s performance ranked lower than the other sales vice presidents, the fact that M r. Bernstein praised the other employees but not M r. M erritt during M onday morning revenue calls is not probative of age discrimination. The other incidents to which M r. M erritt refers, such as M r. Bernstein’s occasional use of the terms “young guys” or “younger guys,” id., Vol. I at 76, ¶¶ 45-47; id., Vol. II -10- at 306, ¶¶ 39-40, appear to be stray remarks that would be insufficient to allow a jury to find for M r. M erritt. As for M r. Kennedy’s statements, they are hearsay, and thus they cannot defeat summary judgment. Jaramillo, 427 F.3d at 1314.