Court Opinion

ID: 9471279
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 03:28:27.866786+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:42:20.194114
License: Public Domain

*1003KRAVITCH, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. The majority states: “In this case, the issue is whether there is sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict that plaintiff carried the burden of showing that the company’s proffered reasons for the discharge were merely a pretext for firing Krieg because of his age.” Maj. Op. at 1001.
Proof of mere pretext, however, is not the only way in which plaintiff can carry “the ultimate burden of persuading the court that [he] has been the victim of intentional discrimination.” Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. at 256, 101 S.Ct. at 1095. This indirect route may be taken, but plaintiff may also proceed “directly by persuading the court that a discriminatory reason more likely motivated the employer .... ” Id. Once this is recognized, one half of the majority’s analysis unravels. The majority explains why the evidence proffered by Krieg does not “negate” defendant’s proffered reasons but fails to address why “reasonable” persons could not conclude that discrimination was the more likely motive.
The other half of the analysis collapses because, while quoting Boeing v. Shipman Co., 411 F.2d 365, 374 (5th Cir.1969) (en banc), and giving reasons why the evidence proffered by Krieg would not have warranted a directed verdict in his favor, the majority fails to show why the evidence was inadequate to permit the jury to infer discrimination. See id.
First, that the form of Bates’ complaints were qualitatively different from Krieg’s complaints does not preclude “reasonable men,” Boeing v. Shipman Co., 411 F.2d at 374, from concluding that discrimination rather than that qualitative difference was the basis for the disparate treatment. Given the defendant’s evident eagerness to seize the opportunity to terminate Krieg, the jury reasonably could have concluded that “a discriminatory reason more likely motivated the employer .... ” Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, supra.
Second, in my view it cannot be said that the fact that in 13 years only five general managers reached the normal retirement age has no evidentiary value. Maj. Op. at 1002. I would agree that such general evidence would not have justified a directed verdict for Krieg and by itself may not have been sufficient to preclude a directed verdict in the defendant’s favor, but such an unrebutted, unexplained fact, in conjunction with the other evidence presented, has some probative value. Further, while I agree that here the statistics proffered by plaintiff do not support an inference of discrimination, I would analyze the statistics differently. In Pace v. Southern Railway System, 701 F.2d 1383 (11th Cir.1983), which the majority cites to support its analysis, we held that an inference of discrimination necessary to create a prima facie case based on statistical evidence was not established. In so doing we noted that the relevant statistical comparison for these purposes was of the percentage of workers in the protected category who were promoted (here terminated) in the relevant time period to the percentage of workers in the nonprotected category who were promoted (terminated) in the same period. Id. at 1388-89. Extrapolating from the statistics plaintiff has provided here and which are cited in part in the majority opinion, in 1978 approximately 30.43% of general managers under age 40 were terminated while only approximately 25.92% of the general managers in the protected category were terminated. In 1977, 52.17% of general managers under 40 were terminated while only 31.25% of those in the protected group were terminated. In 1976, approximately 30.76% of general managers outside the protected group were terminated while approximately only 21.05% of those 40 and over were released. In 1975, 24% of those under 40 and only 11.86% of those in the protected group were terminated. Based upon that four-year period, an average of 34.34% of the managers under age 40 were terminated annually while an average of only 22.47% of the managers in the protected group were terminated annually. Where a consistently smaller percentage of the protected group *1004was terminated than of the non-protected group, no possible inference of age-based discrimination can be drawn from the statistics. Thus, while disagreeing with the majority’s analysis, I agree with the conclusion that the statistics do not support an inference of discrimination.
Third, however, I am at a loss as to why the evidence concerning the high production requirement does not allow an inference of discrimination. The majority concludes that the differences are attributable to “various factors” but rejects the possibility that one of those factors may have been intentional discrimination. While the majority and the district court may not have inferred discrimination from this evidence if they were on the jury, I disagree that such an inference was beyond the realm of the reasonable. Indeed the example cited by the majority of one resigning general manager also over age 40 who was given an even higher production requirement than Krieg supports an inference that Krieg and others in the protected group were being pushed out by the company.
Finally, it may be that had I been a jurof in this case I would have concluded that Krieg was terminated because he was causing trouble and was unable to produce adequately. There is substantial evidence, however, that the company used Krieg’s criticisms and anger as a way to push him, an employee in the protected age category making a relatively large salary, out of the way for younger, less expensive employees. I cannot join the majority’s determination that this was not a reasonable conclusion. Our role is not to second-guess the jury’s evaluation as long as “reasonable” persons could differ. This is admittedly a close case, which is precisely the reason the jury’s verdict must be respected if the evidence permits an inference of discrimination. Boeing v. Shipman Co., 411 F.2d at 374. I would reverse the grant of judgment notwithstanding the verdict and order the jury verdict for the plaintiff reinstated.