Opinion ID: 1301580
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether the circumstances give rise to an inference of discrimination

Text: Although it is a close question, we conclude that Diaz, Mancilla, and Moreno have also created a triable issue of fact concerning the fourth and final requirement for a prima facie case. This conclusion draws support from a variety of circumstantial evidence.
Including Plaintiffs, the average age of the sixteen workers laid off or discharged from Crew 94 in 2001 and 2002 is 48.4. [3] Three of those workers were 20, 21 and 30 years old, respectively. While the majority fell within the age category protected by the ADEA, most were also hired after the age of forty. One was hired at 69 years of age, only a year and a half before the disputed layoffs. Another was hired in July 2001 at age 65. Several others were hired when they were in their mid- to late-forties. Sixteen other workers were hired for Crew 94 in 2001 and 2002 and not subsequently discharged. Their average age at the time of hiring was 38.75. Nearly half of them were 40 or more years old, including one who was 63 and two who were 57. On its own, this evidence would suggest that an inference of discrimination is not warranted. Eagle Produce laid off many of the Crew 94 employees, including Plaintiffs, only shortly after hiring them at what were already relatively advanced ages. Diaz was hired at 51 and laid off four years later at 55. Moreno was hired at 65 and laid off at 66. Mancilla was hired at 58 and laid off at 63. If Eagle Produce was biased against older workers, it presumably would not have hired Plaintiffs in the first place. The temporal proximity between each Plaintiffs hiring and layoff also makes it unlikely that age later developed as the reason for the discharges. The difference in physical and mental capacity between an average 65 year-old and an average 66 year-old, or between a 58 year-old and a 63 year-old, is not significant enough to warrant an inference of anything but the most arbitrary bias. See Bradley v. Harcourt, Brace & Co., 104 F.3d 267, 270-71 (9th Cir.1996) ([W]here the same actor is responsible for both the hiring and the firing of a discrimination plaintiff, and both actions occur within a short period of time, a strong inference arises that there was no discriminatory motive.). That the average age of the workers hired during the two-year period is approximately nine and a half years younger than the average age of those laid off  38.75 versus 48.4 years  also fails to justify an inference of age discrimination. The disparity is not so stark as to suggest bias rather than pure chance. See O'Connor v. Consol. Coin Caterers Corp., 517 U.S. 308, 313, 116 S.Ct. 1307, 134 L.Ed.2d 433 (1996) (In the age discrimination context . . . an inference [of discriminatory intent] cannot be drawn from the replacement of one worker with another worker insignificantly younger.); Hartley v. Wis. Bell, Inc., 124 F.3d 887, 893 (7th Cir.1997) (holding that replacement employees must be at least ten years younger than their predecessors to justify a presumption of age discrimination). This is particularly true because the two data sets of sixteen workers are too small to form a reliable basis for analysis. See Palmer, 794 F.2d at 539 (finding certain statistical evidence of employment discrimination unpersuasive because the sample size was too small). A different picture emerges, however, when we consider the data with Brandt in mind. He first began to make personnel decisions for Crew 94 when he was hired as a supervisor in May 2001. The average age of the workers hired before that date was 44.29. For the period of May 2001 to January 2002, during which Daffern and Brandt both made personnel decisions, the average age of Crew 94 hirees dropped to 40.8. Once Brandt took over as the sole hiring authority, the average age dropped still further to 35.28. By contrast, the average age of workers laid off from Crew 94 increased slightly from 46.2 during the period of Daffern's and Brandt's joint supervision to 51.1 after Brandt became the sole supervisor. In short, the disparity between the average age of those hired and those laid off increased from slightly less than two years to nearly 16 years once Brandt started to make personnel decisions. This evidence suggests that although Eagle Produce was not responsible for discriminatory hiring practices prior to Brandt's advent, Brandt used his authority to replace older workers with younger counterparts. Reasonable jurors could find that this interpretation of the data supports an inference of discrimination. Viewing the statistical evidence with Brandt in mind helps to explain how Eagle Produce could both hire Plaintiffs without regard to age and also terminate their employment because of age shortly thereafter. Because Brandt did not work at Eagle Produce until May 2001, he could not preclude the hiring of Mancilla in approximately 1996, Diaz in 1997, and Moreno in 2000. However, he could lay off these workers because of their ages in the winter of 2002.
The inference of discrimination also draws support from Brandt's knowledge that his hirees were on average substantially younger than the workers he laid off. Brandt did not know the precise ages of Diaz, Moreno, and Mancilla, but he must have possessed a general sense that these individuals were relatively advanced in age because he personally observed them at the farm on a regular basis. See Woodman v. WWOR-TV, Inc., 411 F.3d 69, 80 (2d Cir.2005) (on-the-job contact is sufficient to warrant an inference of an employer's knowledge of age). Because of his final position as the sole hiring authority for Crew 94, the crew's moderate size, and his daily contact with its workers, Brandt also must have known that the individuals he hired in 2002 were younger than those he laid off. Id. In concluding otherwise, the district court failed to construe the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs. See Jones, 557 F.2d at 1310.
Reasonable jurors could find that Brandt's decision not to lay off several substantially younger workers with less experience than Diaz, Moreno, and Mancilla also supports an inference of discrimination. One worker was 19 years old and had approximately five months of experience in Crew 94 at the time Plaintiffs lost their jobs. Another was 21 years old and had approximately two years of experience in Crew 94. Another was 36 and possessed about 1.5 years of experience. Still another was 42 and had two months of experience. At the very least, these individuals had no more experience at the Aguila farm than Diaz, Moreno, and Mancilla, who worked there for 4, 1.5, and 5 years, respectively. Nevertheless, Brandt chose not to fire any of these younger workers during the seasonal slowdown.
Evidence concerning the job experience of Diaz and Moreno relative to that of their replacements provides additional support for an inference of discrimination. Seven individuals were hired around or shortly after the dates on which Plaintiffs lost their jobs. Due to a lack of evidence, the qualifications of three of those hired cannot be determined. Two others were hired successively to operate a grading machine with which Diaz, Moreno, and Mancilla had no experience. Accordingly, they cannot be viewed as replacements. The remaining two workers were Javier Gastelum (28) and Jesus F. Valdez (21). Gastelum purportedly had 15 years of experience driving a tractor at the time he was hired. Valdez had around five years of experience with a tractor and knew a little about that line of work. This evidence creates a triable issue of fact as to whether Diaz and Moreno were at least as qualified as their successors. Diaz had driven tractors and performed general farm labor for eleven years. Valdez was no more qualified in terms of length of experience. Gastelum had driven a tractor longer than either Diaz or Moreno, but it is unlikely that this difference made Gastelum more qualified in any meaningful sense. The parties do not dispute that the job did not require specialized training, and the learning curve was not such that years of experience were required for mastery. The district court erred in weighing against Plaintiffs the absence of evidence that particular, less-qualified, younger workers were hired in their steads. It is true that, due to high turnover in Crew 94, Plaintiffs are unable to identify their individual replacements. However, we treat the last element of the prima facie case with flexibility. Nidds v. Schindler Elevator Corp., 113 F.3d 912, 917 (9th Cir.1996). To support an inference of discrimination an employee need not demonstrate that one particular individual was designated as his replacement; evidence that a group of younger and comparably or less-qualified employees assumed the plaintiffs responsibilities is sufficient. See Rodriguez-Torres v. Caribbean Forms Mfr., Inc., 399 F.3d 52, 59 (1st Cir.2005). It is therefore enough that Diaz and Moreno identified Gastelum and Valdez as their collective replacements. [4]