Opinion ID: 771079
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: A Prima Facie Case?

Text: 12 Despite defendants' protests to the contrary, we conclude that plaintiff has established a prima facie case of age discrimination. We have stated that [i]n order to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination under the standard enunciated in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), a plaintiff must show (1) that he was within the protected age group, (2) that he was qualified for the position, (3) that he was discharged, and (4) that the discharge occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of age discrimination. Id. (internal quotation marks and parallel citations omitted). Furthermore, [t]he burden of proof that must be met to establish a prima facie case is minimal. Hollander v. American Cyanamid Co., 172 F.3d 192, 199 (2d Cir. 1999). 13 Plaintiff has met this minimal burden. First, plaintiff was over sixty years old when he was fired, and thus fell within the protected age group. See 29 U.S.C. § 631(a). Second, plaintiff had extensive law enforcement experience. He was a police officer for the State and then City of New York for a total of nineteen years, then served as a police chief in four different locales between 1978 and 1993, before being admitted to the New York Bar. A jury easily could conclude that as an attorney with a law enforcement background, plaintiff was qualified to serve as an investigator for Legal Aid. Third, plaintiff was discharged in December 1997. Finally, the fact that he was replaced by a 31-year-old is sufficient to give rise to the inference that he was the victim of discrimination. See, e.g., Tarshis v. Riese Org., 211 F.3d 30, 38 (2d Cir. 2000). He thus has put forth the minimal proof necessary to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination. 14