Court Opinion

ID: 9568350
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:02:51.291186+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:24:39.758797
License: Public Domain

ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. First, it is not so clear to me as it apparently is to the majority that Yesehick’s claim is not time barred. The substance of Yeschick’s argument against a time bar is that, despite his having done nothing whatsoever for nine years to inquire into vacancies or to update his own application he is entitled to bootstrap from the most recent hirings his claim that younger people were now being hired. But even if his ADEA claim is not time barred, I do not agree that there remains any genuine issue regarding the facts material to the third element of Yes-chick’s prima facie case, namely, that he applied for available positions or that the employer was otherwise obligated to consider him for those positions. Wanger v. *507G.A. Gray Co., 872 F.2d 142, 145 (6th Cir.1989); see also Pucci v. BASF Corp., 55 Fed.Appx. 243, 245 (6th Cir.2002). The testimony of Joyce Brand that the majority relies on does not help Yeschick. Brand testified that she had, on occasion, attempted to contact individuals whose information was outdated, but those individuals were applicants who had been selected for employment, not simply individuals whose names were on the applicant lists. Nor does the testimony of Williams-Gaylor help Yeschick. Williams-Gaylor left his position as manager of the PATCO data base two years before the FAA decided to cull the PATCO applicant list. In short, Yeschick’s claim is premised on his belief, which is unsupported by any evidence, that his application remained active. I would affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the Secretary.