Opinion ID: 629086
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Super Valu's Business Justifications.

Text: 57 Plaintiffs allege they were not hired in part because of their union affiliation and Super Valu should not be allowed to escape liability through the articulation of an illegal action under one federal statute [National Labor Relations Act] in defense of claims brought under another federal statute [ADEA]. 58 In general, the record does not support the plaintiffs' claim. Super Valu contends it did not hire Associated Grocers' ex-employees because of poor morale, incidents of vandalism and sabotage, and animus towards Super Valu. These are legitimate business justifications. Although some of the evidence admitted to demonstrate the animosity Associated Grocers' employees displayed towards Super Valu took place during lawful union activity, the relevancy of the evidence was not based upon the union activity per se. Instead, Super Valu's concerns were derived from the conduct of Associated Grocers' ex-employees which, at times, took place in the context of union activity. For example, testimony regarding union picket lines focused on statements shouted by participants at Super Valu and picket signs blaming Super Valu for lost jobs. 15 The trial court instructed the jury that picket line activity was acceptable and further stated that any evidence pertaining merely to legitimate, legal union activities was irrelevant. We hold it was proper for the district court to admit evidence reflecting these legitimate business concerns. 59 Even if we assume, arguendo, that Super Valu chose not to hire some individuals because they were union members, such a decision is not actionable under the ADEA. 16 The ADEA protects individuals from age discrimination, it does not protect individuals from other forms of alleged employer misconduct. In Flasher, 986 F.2d at 1316, this circuit reached a similar conclusion regarding Title VII by holding that an employer's burden is merely to articulate through some proof a facially nondiscriminatory reason for the termination. The term nondiscriminatory, however, refer[s] only to the classes of people protected by Title VII ... [and] [d]iscrimination based upon other characteristics or factors is not prohibited by Title VII. Id. at 1316 n. 4. Thus, the defendant is only required to articulate a reason ... that is not, on its face, prohibited by Title VII. Id. We believe the ADEA, like Title VII[,] does not compel every employer to have a good reason for its deeds; it is not a civil service statute. Id. at 1321 (quoting Benzies v. Illinois Dep't of Mental Health & Developmental Disabilities, 810 F.2d 146, 148 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 483 U.S. 1006, 107 S.Ct. 3231, 97 L.Ed.2d 737 (1987)). Instead, the ADEA only makes it unlawful to discriminate against an individual based on age. 29 U.S.C.A. Sec. 623(a) (West 1985); see Biggins, --- U.S. at ----, 113 S.Ct. at 1707 (it cannot be true that an employer who fires an older black worker because the worker is black thereby violates the ADEA. The employee's race is an improper reason, but it is improper under Title VII, not the ADEA). Therefore, even if Super Valu's business justification was in fact unlawful under a different statute than the ADEA, Super Valu satisfied its burden of production under McDonnell Douglas by rebutting the inference that it acted out of discriminatory animus. See Flasher, 986 F.2d at 1317 n. 5. 60 Plaintiffs also argue that Super Valu made only vague, general averments or claims ... [of] good faith in offering legitimate business reasons for failing to hire the plaintiffs. 61 An employer satisfies the burden of production by presenting its reasons for not hiring the plaintiffs with sufficient specificity to allow the plaintiff to demonstrate pretext. Pitre v. Western Elec. Co., 843 F.2d 1262, 1265-66 (10th Cir.1988). We believe Super Valu satisfied this burden. For example, Super Valu called witnesses who testified to the following conduct at the Associated Grocers warehouse: assorted acts of vandalism, foodstuff purposely damaged or destroyed, company vehicles sabotaged, poor morale, low productivity, bad attitude, expletives directed at Super Valu, and various other examples of anger directed towards Super Valu. Such evidence is more than a mere general assertion of good faith and was specific enough to provide the plaintiff[s] with 'a full and fair opportunity to demonstrate pretext.'  Id. at 1266 (quoting Burdine, 450 U.S. at 256, 101 S.Ct. at 1095). 62 Plaintiffs' final contention regarding admission of Super Valu's business justification evidence is the court committed reversible error by admitting hearsay and double hearsay evidence. 63 The business justifications offered by an employer must be admissible evidence, Burdine, 450 U.S. at 255, 101 S.Ct. at 1094, and hearsay is generally not admissible under Fed.R.Evid. 803. Statements offered for the effect on the listener, however, are generally not hearsay. United States v. Lambinus, 747 F.2d 592, 597 (10th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1067, 105 S.Ct. 2143, 85 L.Ed.2d 500 (1985). 64 After careful review of the record, it is apparent the majority of business justification evidence presented by Super Valu was nonhearsay testimony regarding direct knowledge of vandalism, food product damage, low morale, and animus towards Super Valu. In some instances, the trial court permitted testimony concerning an out-of-court statement, but the testimony was offered to establish Super Valu's state of mind in making its hiring decisions and was not offered for the truth of the matter asserted. For example, the personnel manager for Super Valu testified that he had removed Associated Grocers' ex-employee applications from consideration because he heard about vandalism and low morale among those individuals. Although this testimony incorporates out-of-court statements, it was expressly presented to demonstrate Super Valu's state of mind in not hiring Associated Grocers' ex-employees, and was not offered to prove the truth of the matter overheard. Moreover, the trial court repeatedly instructed the jury as to the limited purpose of the testimony. 65 Plaintiffs challenge the clarity of the trial court's instructions regarding the state of mind evidence. Since plaintiffs did not raise the objection at trial, we review for plain error. Denison, 941 F.2d at 1422. The district court informed the jury on numerous occasions that testimony involving out-of-court statements was not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, but instead, was offered to show Super Valu's state of mind in making its employment decisions. Although not every instruction was ideally worded, we find no plain error. 66