Court Opinion

ID: 9482696
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 08:58:04.994947+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:49:09.080218
License: Public Domain

CONTIE, Senior Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
For the following reasons, I respectfully dissent. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act makes unlawful the discharge of an employee because of his age. 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(1). Appellant argues that he successfully carried his ultimate burden of proving that the employer’s prof-erred reason for his termination was a pretext for age discrimination and that the district court erred in granting appellee’s motion for judgment n.o.v.
A judgment notwithstanding the verdict is a question of law that is freely reviewable on appeal. The issue raised by a judgment n.o.v. is whether there was sufficient evidence to raise a question of fact for the jury. O’Neill v. Kiledjian, 511 F.2d 511, 513 (6th Cir.1975). A judgment n.o.v. may be granted only if, upon viewing the totality of the admissible evidence most favorably to the party opposing the motion, a reasonable trier of fact could draw but one conclusion. Hill v. Spiegel, Inc., 708 F.2d 233, 237 (6th Cir.1983) (cited in Ridenour v. Lawson Co., 791 F.2d 52, 55 (6th Cir.1986)). Thus, a judgment n.o.v. can only be reversed if, after viewing all of the evidence and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff, this court concludes that the evidence “points so strongly in favor of the movant that reasonable minds could not come to a different conclusion.” Morelock v. NCR Corp., 586 F.2d 1096, 1104-05 (6th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 906, 99 S.Ct. 1995, 60 L.Ed.2d 375 (1979).
In Blackwell v. Sun Electric Co., 696 F.2d 1176 (6th Cir.1983), this court noted that the burden of proof in an ADEA case should be allocated in accordance with the Supreme Court’s decision in Texas Dept. of Comm. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981). However, in the present case, the district court elected not to decide whether or not appellant made out a prima facie case, instead deciding only that the appellant did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he was discharged because of age. Joint Appendix at 66. Therefore, in the present posture, we need only review the district court’s decision that appellant failed to carry his ultimate burden, and not each of the elements articulated in Bur-dine.
I.
In order to successfully carry the ultimate burden in an age discrimination case, the plaintiff must prove, by a preponder-*727anee of the evidence, that the employer’s articulated reasons for the discharge were a pretext for intentional age discrimination. Chappell v. GTE Products Corp., 803 F.2d 261, 266 (6th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 919, 107 S.Ct. 1375, 94 L.Ed.2d 690 (1987). There are three ways in which a plaintiff can establish that a defendant’s reasons for the job termination were pre-textual: (1) by showing that the reasons had no basis in fact; (2) if they have a basis in fact, by showing that they were not the actual factors motivating the discharge; or (3) if they were factors, by showing that they were jointly insufficient to motivate the discharge. Id.; LaMontagne v. American Convenience Products, Inc., 750 F.2d 1405, 1414-15 (7th Cir.1984).
As this circuit recognized in Chappell, plaintiffs often find it difficult to meet their ultimate burden of persuasion in age discrimination cases, even “though they have only to show that age was ‘a’ and not ‘the’ determining factor in the employer’s personnel decision.” Chappell, 803 F.2d at 266, citing Cuddy v. Carmen, 694 F.2d 853, 859 (D.C.Cir.1982). Moreover, an ADEA plaintiff who has been terminated pursuant to a corporate reorganization or work force reduction has a more demanding burden of supporting charges of discrimination than does an employee who was terminated for other reasons. Ridenour, 791 F.2d at 57.1 Indeed, in these cases, an employee must rely on additional statistical evidence, or evidence that the “employer made statements indicative of a discriminatory motive,” Barnes v. Gen-Corp, Inc., 896 F.2d 1457, 1466 (6th Cir.1990), as circumstantial evidence that age was a determining factor. See also Ridenour, 791 F.2d at 57; LaGrant v. Gulf & Western Manf. Co., 748 F.2d 1087 (6th Cir.1984). In the case at bar, appellant relies on two types of evidence in an effort to demonstrate that his termination was pretextual: (1) evidence that he was the only, and the oldest, “direct report” executive level employee terminated; and (2) evidence of discriminatory statements made by Hilton which supposedly influenced the termination decision. There is little merit in either of appellant’s contentions.
A.
Appellant first argues that he was the only “direct report” executive whose job was discontinued. Appellant contends that the fact that he was the oldest “direct report,” at age 62, is evidence that the appellee’s work force reduction was a pretext for age discrimination. Appellant argues that the other eleven executives contained in this group were all retained by appellee, who managed to find other positions for them. However, this is not an accurate characterization of what occurred within this group of executives. In fact, Sam Lewis, appellant’s counterpart at the ME & FG group, also lost his job six months later after he completed working on a specific project. Lewis was 47 years old, and like appellant, the appellee could find no other position for him. Joint Appendix at 611-12. Moreover, one member of this group of “direct reports,” J.M. Wurstra, was reassigned to a position as general counsel for another division. Appellant, who lacked legal training, could not have been reassigned to this position. Of the other “direct reports” who were reassigned, appellant has not met his burden of proving that he was qualified to fill any of those reassigned positions. Therefore it cannot be inferred that age was a determinative factor in appellee’s management restructuring. Instead, this evidence can only demonstrate that the appellee treated similarly situated persons in an equal manner.
However, our inquiry should not be limited to the twelve “direct reports,” as appellant suggests. Rather, we must focus on all the executive level employees within the CEG, whether or not they were “direct reports” and also on all the planning posi*728tions which existed within all of the eight groups which appellee liquidated.
First, in the CEG there were nine executive level personnel before the reorganization occurred. Five of these executives were reassigned to other positions within Dresser, Four of these executives were terminated, including appellant at age 62. However, the three other executives who lost their jobs, and their ages, are as follows: P.T. Cleary, 50; L.J. Landis, 41; and E.L. Herbert, 33. Joint Appendix at 431. These three executives were younger than three of the five executives who were repositioned. Thus, there is no numerical evidence which suggests that the decision to liquidate was motivated by age. Instead, it appears that the restructuring was made independent of any age-related factors.
Secondly, the district court held “[p]er-haps the most telling evidence introduced in this case demonstrating the utter lack of even a scintilla of evidence of discrimination is the fact that six of the eight executives holding group planning positions were terminated.” Joint Appendix at 74, 434. The age group of the six planners who were terminated ranged from 61 to 45, while the ages of those planners who were reassigned were 55 and 48. Moreover, the two planners who were permanently reassigned possessed specialized skills which appellant lacked. Appellant failed to demonstrate that he was qualified for any of these positions, yet was denied reassignment.2 Thus, specialized skills, and not age appears to be the factor which determined the fates of the planners. Without more, appellant’s attempt to meet his burden of proof by relying on numerical comparisons falls short, as a jury could not infer from this evidence that appellant was discriminated against because of his age.
Appellant nevertheless argues that he should have been offered one of these new positions, as he was a productive and hardworking employee with many years of service to the company, and that the appellee’s failure to reassign him was sufficient to raise an inference of discrimination. However, “[wjhere an employer reduces his workforce for economic reasons, it incurs no duty to transfer an employee to another position within the company.” Ridenour, 791 F.2d at 57; Barnes, 896 F.2d at 1469. Therefore, appellee’s failure to find a new position for the appellant cannot raise an inference of discrimination in this case. However, even if such a duty existed, the evidence clearly demonstrates that appellee implemented the reassignment of employees without regard to age. Indeed, executives who were younger than the appellant, and younger than many executives who were reassigned, also had their positions eliminated. In addition, those planners who were reassigned possessed specialized skills, such as accountancy and marketing experience, which enabled them to perform jobs for which appellant was not qualified. In fact, appellant has completely failed to identify a job which he would have been capable of performing. In the absence of such a showing, a jury could not infer a discriminatory motive from the simple fact that the appellee found new positions for other employees but not the appellant. Although appellant had many years of service with the company, that alone would not entitle him to a position for which he was unqualified, nor would the fact that he was not offered a position that was subsequently given to a less-senior employee raise an inference of discrimination. Thus, based on numerical comparisons with other similarly situated employees, there is no evidence that appellee’s work force reduction and subsequent reassignments were a pretext for age discrimination.
B.
Appellant also relies on evidence that Hilton made a statement to officials at corporate headquarters that appellant “wouldn’t mind termination because he was *729so close to retirement age.” Appellant’s Reply Brief at 6. It is not in dispute that, at some point, appellant made this comment to Hilton. However, there appears to be some uncertainty as to when, and if, Hilton relayed this information to the corporate headquarters before the decision to restructure was made. Appellant argues that the jury could infer from the evidence presented that the statement was made prior to the decision to terminate appellant. Thus, he argues, this statement may have had some bearing on who was eventually terminated. Appellant relies, in part, on the following:
Q. Line 2. The question was put to you: Who made the decision to terminate Chet Hawley. I mean, what persons? Do you recall your answer? Or could you read your answer?
A. [by Korb]: Should I read the answer? “That would have been a Jim Hilton, George Korb, Jack Murphy-type decision.”
Joint Appendix at 652-53. Since Hilton had input into the decision to terminate and he had knowledge of appellant’s statement about retirement, appellant argues that age likely entered into the decision to terminate him. However, it is clear from the evidence presented at trial that the decision to initiate a work force reduction in response to severe economic losses came from a source much higher up in the chain of organization, and that Hilton, who was merely a group president, did not influence this decision. The record demonstrates that this decision was made by Jack Murphy, Dresser’s president, who early in the summer of 1983, decided that the entire group structure would have to be liquidated. Joint Appendix at 626. This is the decision which led to appellant’s termination, and it is evident that it was made in response to economic conditions, and irrespective of any age-related characteristics of the individual executives which comprised the group structure. At the time that George Korb specifically decided to eliminate appellant’s position, Korb testified that he did not yet have knowledge of Hilton’s comment. Id. at 623. In addition, Hilton testified, repeatedly, that he “did not communicate [the comment] to our corporate office until after my discussion with Mr. Hawley about his termination.” Id. at 584; see also id. at 721. Thus, the timing of the comment, relayed to corporate headquarters after the initial decision was made to reorganize the corporation, precludes a jury from relying on it to support an inference of age bias.
Nevertheless, it is likely that Hilton did have some input into implementing this decision to liquidate group level management. His contribution included trying to reassign displaced executives to new positions within the organization. Thus, appellant argues that, in fact, the termination in this case was comprised of two parts. First, the termination was begun by the decision made in corporate headquarters to liquidate various levels of management. However, appellant’s termination was not actually complete until Hilton unsuccessfully tried to find a new position for him. It was only once appellant could not be reassigned to a new job that his termination became effective. Therefore, because Hilton knew of appellant’s view of retirement, appellant argues that the failure to reassign him— and hence his termination — was driven in part by age considerations. However, for the following reasons, I do not believe that any inference of age discrimination was raised by Hilton’s failure to reassign appellant.
First, the characteristics of the executives who were not reassigned cut across all ages — some younger than appellant. Furthermore, those who were reassigned possessed specialized qualifications which appellant lacked. Appellant was unable to point to a single job for which he was qualified to fill. Secondly, the comment regarding retirement, made originally by appellant, is too abstract to alone support a finding of age discrimination. Chappell, 803 F.2d at 268, n. 2. It is clear that not every statement or comment regarding a person’s age is probative of an intent to discriminate. Young v. General Foods Corp., 840 F.2d 825, 829 (11th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1004, 109 S.Ct. 782, 102 L.Ed.2d 774 (1989). A single reference *730to appellant’s retirement, without more, is not sufficiently probative to meet appellant’s burden of proof under the ADEA. Finally, this argument carries little weight because an employer is not required to find substitute employment for executives who were displaced because of a work force reduction. Barnes, 896 F.2d at 1469-70; Ridenour, 791 F.2d at 57; Sahadi v. Reynolds Chemical, 636 F.2d 1116, 1117 (6th Cir.1980).
Since there was no evidence that appellant’s comment to Hilton was relayed to corporate headquarters before the decision to restructure was made, or that this isolated comment could have contributed in any way to the decision to implement a management-wide liquidation, I would hold that the district court’s decision to grant judgment n.o.v. was proper because there was no evidence from which a jury could infer that appellee’s termination of appellant was motivated by age.
For the above reasons, I would also hold that the district court properly granted a judgment n.o.v. with respect to the issue of willful discrimination.

. A "work force reduction" was described by this circuit as a situation that "occurs when business considerations cause an employer to eliminate one or more positions within the company. An employee is not eliminated as part of a work force reduction when he or she is replaced after his or her discharge.” Barnes, 896 F.2d at 1465.

. Appellant contends that one of his subordinates, J.R. Mitchell, was reassigned, and that appellee’s failure to offer him this job raises an inference of discrimination. However, appellant never specifies the type of job into which Mitchell was placed, nor does he demonstrate that he was qualified to fill that job. The fact that appellant’s subordinate was offered a new position, without more, is not enough to support an inference of discrimination.