Opinion ID: 77921
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Van Voorhis Presented Direct Evidence of Discrimination.

Text: Under the ADEA, a plaintiff . . . bears the ultimate burden of proving that age was a determining factor in the employer's decision . [not to hire] him or her. Carter v. City of Miami, 870 F.2d 578, 581 (11th Cir.1989). A plaintiff may establish a claim of illegal age discrimination through either direct evidence or circumstantial evidence. See id. We define direct evidence of discrimination as evidence that reflects a discriminatory or retaliatory attitude correlating to the discrimination or retaliation complained of by the employee. Wilson v. BIE Aerospace, Inc., 376 F.3d 1079, 1086 (11th Cir.2004) (quoting Damon v. Fleming Supermarkets of Fla., Inc., 196 F.3d 1354, 1358 (11th Cir.1999)) (internal quotation marks omitted). [O]nly the most blatant remarks, whose intent could be nothing other than to discriminate on the basis of age, constitute direct evidence of discrimination. City of Miami, 870 F.2d at 582; see also Merritt v. Dillard Paper Co., 120 F.3d 1181, 1189-90 (11th Cir.1997) (listing cases where we have concluded that remarks and actions constitute direct evidence of illegal discrimination). In the face of direct evidence, an employer must prove that the same employment decision would have been made absent any discriminatory intent. City of Miami, 870 F.2d at 582. Jacobson's alleged statements that he didn't want to hire any old pilots and was not going to interview any of the applicants from the first recruitment period, including Van Voorhis, because he didn't want to hire an old pilot are direct evidence of age discrimination. The import of the alleged statements could be nothing other than to discriminate on the basis of age. Id. The district court erred when it concluded that the alleged statements did not constitute direct evidence of discrimination on the basis of age.