Opinion ID: 42342
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Polley’s Age Discrimination Claim

Text: The district court determined that although Polley satisfied his burden of establishing a prima facie case of age discrimination, Polley was unable to show that Mohawk’s legitimate non-discriminatory reason for Polley’s termination – elimination of the position – was a pretext for discrimination. A plaintiff may establish a prima facie case of age discrimination using circumstantial evidence by employing the analytical framework established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S. Ct. 1817 (1973), and Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 101 S. Ct. 1089 (1981). If the plaintiff satisfies his burden of establishing a prima facie case, “the employer then must offer a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for the employment action.” Mitchell v. USBI Co., 186 F.3d 1352, 1354 (11th Cir. 1999). “If the employer does so, the plaintiff bears the ultimate burden of demonstrating that the employer’s proffered reasons are a pretext for discrimination.” Id. We need not decide whether Polley satisfied his burden of establishing a prima facie case, because Mowhawk clearly had a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for Polley’s termination, and we agree with the district court that Polley is unable to show pretext in any event. Polley argues that the decision to terminate him was actually made by Lorberbaum, not Thornton, and that Lorberbaum 4 terminated Polley because of Polley’s age. However, both Lorberbaum and Thornton testified that the decision to terminate Polley was Thornton’s and that Thornton terminated Polley because his position had become unnecessary. Further, it is undisputed that Polley’s position was eliminated and that Mohawk did not hire anyone to fill the eliminated position. Like the district court, we are unable to find any evidence that would permit a reasonable fact finder to conclude that Mohawk’s reason for terminating Polley was pretext for discrimination.1 Thus, the district court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of Mohawk on Polley’s age discrimination claim.