Document: 517 U.S. 308116 S.Ct. 1307134 L.Ed.2d 433 O'CONNORv.CONSOLIDATED COIN CATERERS CORP. Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for Fourth Circuit. No. 95-354. Syllabus* Argued February 27, 1996 Decided April 1, At age 56, petitioner was fired by respondent corporation and replacedby a 40-year-old worker.He then filed this suit, alleging that hisdischarge violated Age Discrimination in Employment Act 1967 (ADEA).The District granted respondent's summary judgmentmotion, affirmed, holding petitionerfailed make out prima facie case discrimination under McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U. S. 792, because he failed toshow replaced someone outside group protected bythe ADEA. Held: Assuming Title VII's framework isapplicable ADEA cases, there must be at least logical connectionbetween each element illegaldiscrimination.Replacement 40 fails requirement.Although limits its protection those who are or older,it prohibits against employees on thebasis age, not class membership.That one member protectedclass lost another is irrelevant, so long as outbecause his age.The latter more reliably indicated factthat replacement substantially younger than fact hisreplacement class.56 F. 3d 542,reversed remanded. Justice Scalia delivered opinion Court. 1 This presents question whether plaintiff allegingthat discharged violation inEmployment (ADEA), 81 Stat. 602, amended, 29 C.Section(s) 621 et seq., show someoneoutside faciecase established v.Green, 792 (1973). 2 Petitioner James O'Connor employed respondentConsolidated Coin Caterers Corporation from 1978 until August 10, 1990,when, fired.Claiming had been dismissedbecause ADEA, brought suit inthe Western NorthCarolina.After discovery, respondent'smotion judgment, 829 Supp. 155 (1993), petitionerappealed.The Circuit stated thatpetitioner could establish Douglasonly if prove (1) theADEA; (2) demoted; (3) time dischargeor demotion, performing job level met hisemployer's legitimate expectations; (4) following discharge ordemotion, comparable qualificationsoutside class.Since petitioner's 40years old, concluded last theprima made out.156 542, 546 (1995).Finding claim survive motion summaryjudgment without benefit presumption (i.e.,"under ordinary standards proof used civil cases," 56 3d,at 548), affirmed judgment dismissal.Wegranted O'Connor's petition certiorari.516 ___ (1995). 3 In Douglas, we "established an allocation theburden production order presentation TitleVII discriminatory-treatment cases."St. Mary's Honor Center Hicks,509 502, 506 (1993).We held racialdiscrimination VII Civil Rights of1964, 42 C. Section(s) 2000e primafacie showing "(i) belongs racial minority; (ii)that applied qualified which employer wasseeking applicants; (iii) that, despite qualifications, wasrejected; (iv) after rejection, position remained openand continued seek applicants persons [the]complainant's qualifications."McDonnell S., 802.Once has initial burden, burden productionshifts "to articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatoryreason employee's rejection." Ibid. If trier findsthat elements supported apreponderance evidence remains silent, courtmust enter plaintiff. St. Center, supra,at 509-510, n. 3; Texas Dept. Community Affairs Burdine, 450U. 248, 254 (1981). 4 assessing claims theADEA, Circuit, like others,2 variant ofthe basic evidentiary set forth Douglas.We havenever occasion decide application VIIrule context correct, but since parties do notcontest point, shall assume it.Cf. Center,supra, (assuming "the isfully applicable racial-discrimination-in-employment 42U. 1983"). On assumption, presentedfor our determination what shown toestablish triggers employer's ofproduction. 5 As very name "prima case" suggests, atleast connection between caseand illegal it establishes "legallymandatory, rebuttable presumption," supra, 254, 7.Theelement requirement.Thediscrimination prohibited "because [an]individual's age," 623(a)(1), though theprohibition "limited individuals years ofage," 631(a). language does ban discriminationagainst they aged older; bansdiscrimination their theprotected older.The personin person thus age.Or put point concretely, can no greater inferenceof (as opposed "40 over" discrimination) when a40 year-old 39 isreplaced year-old.Because lacks probative value, proper case. 6 Perhaps courts have induced adopt principleurged avoid creating thin evidence-for example, 68year-old 65 year-old.While principletheoretically permits such (consider example above ofa year-old), practical matter willrarely so, vast majority age-discrimination comefrom older employees.In view, however, solution theproblem lies making utterly irrelevant factor case, rather recognizing requires "evidence adequate create inference anemployment decision based a[n] [illegal] discriminatory criterion. . ."Teamsters States, 431 324, 358 (1977)(emphasis added).In context, inferencecan drawn worker with workerinsignificantly younger.Because onthe basis membership, replacementis far reliableindicator wasreplaced class. The theFourth reversed, remanded proceedingsconsistent opinion. 7 It ordered. * syllabus constitutes part Courtbut prepared Reporter Decisions convenienceof reader.See Detroit Lumber Co., 200 321,337. court also even modifiedversion standard FourthCircuit applies reduction-in-force see Mitchell DataGeneral Corp., 12 1310, 1315 prevail.We limit review Circuit's treatment anon-reduction-in-force See, e.g., Roper Peabody Coal 47 925, 926-927 (CA7 1995); Rinehart Independence, 35 1263, 1265 (CA8 1994),cert. denied, 514 (1995); Seman Coplay Cement 26 3d428, 432, (CA3 1994); Roush KFC Nat. Mgt. 10 392, 396 (CA6 1993), cert. 513 (1994); Lindsey Prive Corp.,987 2d 326, (CA5 1993); Goldstein Manhattan Industries,Inc., 758 1435, 1442 (CA11), 474 1005 (1985);Haskell Kaman 743 113, 119, (CA2 1984); Cuddyv. Carmen, 694 853, 856-857 (CADC 1982); Anderson, 656F. 528, 531-532 (CA9 1981); Loeb Textron, Inc., 600 1003,1014-1016 (CA1 1979); Schwager Sun Oil Co. Pa., 591 58,60-61 (CA10 1979).

Category: 1