Lewis v. Aerospace Community Credit Union

Citations: 114 F.3d 745; 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 13016; 70 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 44,727; 74 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1443Docket: 96-2692, 96-3130

Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit; May 29, 1997; Federal Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

Combined Opinion SummaryCombined Opinion Original

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Paul E. Lewis and Gregory F. Kelleher, Jr. appeal the Eastern District of Missouri's summary judgment in favor of Aerospace Community Credit Union regarding their claims of age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The court affirmed the district's decision, finding both plaintiffs failed to present adequate evidence to support their claims. Kelleher, who began working at Aerospace in 1986 and served as a branch manager, and Lewis, hired in 1991 as Vice President of Management Information Systems, were terminated on October 31, 1994, as part of a company-wide cost-reduction plan due to financial difficulties. Both were over fifty at the time of their layoffs, while the two employees who retained positions were under fifty. Aerospace contended that the layoffs were necessary for financial reasons and that neither plaintiff had performance issues. After exhausting administrative remedies, Lewis and Kelleher filed lawsuits alleging age discrimination based on disparate treatment and impact. The court found that neither claim could establish a prima facie case and that the plaintiffs did not adequately challenge Aerospace's justifications for the layoffs. The district court ruled in favor of Aerospace on both claims, leading to the current appeals.

The court conducts a de novo review of the summary judgment, assessing whether any genuine issues of material fact exist when the record is viewed favorably for the nonmoving party, in this case, Kelleher. Kelleher alleges disparate treatment under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), claiming that Aerospace's President, Nina Pilger, made derogatory age-related remarks in front of other employees. While the court agrees that these comments alone do not form a standalone age discrimination claim, they will be considered alongside Kelleher's other evidence to evaluate his disparate treatment claim.

Kelleher's and another employee's age discrimination claims are analyzed using the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework. Kelleher has established a prima facie case of discrimination by demonstrating he was over forty, qualified for his job, and was terminated. He further argues that the circumstances surrounding his dismissal imply age discrimination, noting that he was the only over-fifty branch manager whose position was eliminated while younger managers were reassigned.

Although merely redistributing duties to younger employees is insufficient to establish a prima facie case, the context suggests potential discriminatory motives, as Kelleher was the only branch manager over fifty to lose his job. Additionally, Kelleher presents statistical evidence indicating that from 1993 to 1995, Aerospace terminated all three nonbargaining employees over fifty while only one employee under forty was terminated. The district court found this statistical evidence inconclusive but acknowledged its potential to raise questions about the employer's motives. However, the court ultimately determined that Kelleher did not sufficiently show an inference of age discrimination, as the age disparity among employees disappeared when considering those in the collective bargaining unit, which the court deemed irrelevant to Kelleher’s managerial claims due to differences in job nature and protections.

Kelleher's evidence is given due consideration, revealing circumstances suggesting age discrimination, particularly since Aerospace terminated all management employees over fifty. Aerospace justifies Kelleher's dismissal by citing financial necessity and the centralization of services, which Kelleher does not contest. He argues, however, that the subsequent five percent raise for employees undermines claims of financial hardship. The court finds no inherent contradiction between wage increases and job cuts, noting the raise was mandated by a collective bargaining agreement and that management had experienced a wage freeze. Aerospace provided valid reasons for retaining younger employees over Kelleher, asserting their superior fit for new roles. Kelleher's claim of equal qualifications does not imply discrimination. The court affirms the summary judgment for Aerospace, as Kelleher has not disproven their nondiscriminatory explanations.

Lewis's age discrimination claim is deemed weaker; while he meets the prima facie criteria, he presents insufficient evidence beyond statistical data and wage comparisons. The decision to eliminate his position was based on a determination that it was no longer necessary. The younger employee who took over some duties had previously held a similar role. The court concurs with the district court that Lewis has not established a viable age discrimination case. Both Kelleher and Lewis failed to provide adequate evidence for a disparate impact claim, which requires proof that neutral employment practices disproportionately affect one group without justification.

To establish a claim of discrimination based on a facially-neutral employment practice, a plaintiff must identify the practice, demonstrate its disparate impact on a protected group, and prove causation. Plaintiffs are required to present statistical evidence sufficient to show that the practice has led to the exclusion of applicants from jobs or promotions due to their group membership. Aerospace argues that disparate-impact claims are not valid under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), but the circuit court maintains that such claims are recognized. However, in the cases at hand, the court agrees with the district court that the claimants failed to present adequate statistical evidence to support a prima facie case of age discrimination, noting that a sample size of three nonbargaining-unit employees over fifty is insufficient. Consequently, there is no need to consider Aerospace's business justifications for its decisions. The court affirms the summary judgment in favor of Aerospace regarding all age discrimination claims. Judge Morris Sheppard Arnold concurs with the outcome.