Opinion ID: 6500747
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: KCRA age discrimination claim

Text: Sublett further alleges that MHK discriminated against her based upon her age. Specifically, she asserts that the pay disparity between her and Truax and her and Just is based on her age. As with her disability discrimination claim, because she lacks direct evidence, Sublett must satisfy the McDonnell burden-shifting test. See Williams v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 184 S.W.3d 492, 495 (Ky. 2005) (citation omitted). To establish a prima facie case of age discrimination, Sublett must demonstrate that: “(1) she was over 40 years old; (2) she suffered an adverse employment action; (3) she was qualified for the position she held; and (4) she was either replaced by a person outside the protected class or treated differently than similarly situated individuals.” Laws v. HealthSouth N. Ky. Rehab. Hosp. Ltd. P’ship, 508 F. App’x 404, 410–11 (6th Cir. 2012). The burden then shifts to the defendant to produce a nondiscriminatory rationale for the challenged action. Hardin v. Jefferson Cty. Bd. of Educ., 558 S.W.3d 1, 9 (Ky. Ct. App. 2018). If the defendant does so, then the burden shifts back once again “to the plaintiff to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the actions were motivated by his age and that the proffered reason was a mere pretext for age discrimination.” Id. Even if Sublett has made out her prima facie case, MHK provided legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the transfer, termination, and pay disparity that Sublett has failed to sufficiently rebut. As discussed in relation to her disability discrimination claim, Sublett’s Pillars Director position was eliminated due to the merging of two facilities, necessitating her transfer. And Sublett was terminated from her RSM position for insubordination. In addition, as previously - 17 - Case No. 21-5959, Sublett v. Masonic Homes of Kentucky, Inc. described, MHK has provided evidence that neither Just nor Truax are adequate comparators for pay, as Truax had an executive background and Just was lined up to direct the merged facilities. Sublett has not provided any evidence regarding similarities between herself, Truax, and Just beyond job title. Thus, Sublett has provided no evidence of pretext beyond the bare allegation that she was paid less than younger (but not-similarly-situated) individuals, and that she was eventually replaced by a younger individual. This is insufficient to support a claim of age discrimination. See, e.g., Chappell v. GTE Prod. Corp., 803 F.2d 261, 267 (6th Cir. 1986) (“The isolated fact that a younger person eventually replaces an older employee is not enough to permit a rebuttal inference that the replacement was motivated by age discrimination.”).