Summary 2007 WY 28
[SPECIAL NOTE: These opinions use the "Universal Citation." They were given "official" citations when they were issued. You should use these citations whenever you cite these opinions, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will also note when you look at the opinions that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you pinpoint cite to a quote, you should cite to this paragraph number rather than to any page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation from this opinion using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]
Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court
Case Name: Rollins v. Wyoming Tribune-Eagle
Citation: 2007 28
URL: http://tinyurl.com/2kqsn5
Docket Number: 06-48
Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County, Honorable, Peter G. Arnold Judge
Representing Appellant (Plaintiff): Mitchell E. Osborn, Cheyenne, Wyoming.
Representing Appellee (Defendant): Corinne E. Rutledge and James C. Kaste of Lathrop & Rutledge, Cheyenne, Wyoming.
Date of Decision: February 16, 2007
Issue: Whether the Compliance Officer for the Department of Employment, the Hearing Officer at the contested case hearing, and the District Court properly determined that Appellant failed to present any evidence establishing that age actually played a role in the Appellee's decision to terminate him.
Holding: A three-stage analysis is used to prove discrimination when no direct evidence of age discrimination exists. At the first stage, the plaintiff must prove a prima facie case of discrimination. The plaintiff must show that (1) s/he is within the protected age group; (2) s/he was doing satisfactory work; (3) s/he was discharged; and (4) the position was subsequently filled by a younger person. If the plaintiff satisfies these prima facie requirements, the case enters the next stage. In this second stage, the burden of production moves to the defendant. The defendant has to present a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for its action. If the defendant articulates a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its action, then the burden of persuasion moves back to the plaintiff. In this third stage of the discrimination analysis, the plaintiff must show that age was a determinative factor in the defendant's employment decision, or show that the defendant's explanation for its action was merely pretext. Failure to come forward with evidence of pretext will entitle the defendant to judgment. If no material facts are in dispute concerning the pretextuality of defendants' actions, summary judgment is appropriate.
In the present case, when the three stage burden-shifting analysis is applied, it can be concluded Appellee was entitled to a summary judgment on Appellant's claim of age discrimination. Although Appellant may have established a prima facie case of discrimination, Appellee provided sufficient evidence demonstrating Appellant's supervisors were having problems with his attitude, his work attendance, and disruptive behavior with co-workers. Appellant failed to present sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact to show that age was the determinative factor in his dismissal or that Appellee's employment decision was pretextual.
Although Appellant's supervisor had made questionable ageist comments in order to establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding pretext on the basis of ageist remarks, the employee must show a nexus between the discriminatory statements and the termination decision. In other words, the employee must show that age played an actual role in the termination decision and had a determinative influence on the outcome. Age-related comments referring directly to the employee who is discharged may support an inference of discrimination; however, isolated comments are typically too abstract to support a finding of age discrimination. Stray discriminatory remarks are insufficient to create a jury question because they do not establish the requisite nexus between the comment and the termination decision. When the comments are isolated and there is no showing they are related to the challenged employment action, they are insufficient to show discriminatory animus in termination decisions. In the present case, Appellant provides no details about the context or the timing of any of the ageist comments, and, significantly, none of Appellant' submissions indicate the remarks were made in connection with his discharge. In the absence of more detail as to the time and context of the comments or evidence showing that the comments were actually related to his discharge, Appellant simply has not raised a material issue of fact that age played a role in, or had a determinative influence on, Appellee's decision to terminate his employment.
Although Appellant was not required to disprove Appellee's reasons for his discharge, in order to satisfy the third stage and avoid summary judgment, he was required to show that a discriminatory reason more likely motivated the employer or that the employer's proffered explanation is unworthy of credence. The undisputed facts presented here do not demonstrate that Appellee's explanation for terminating Appellant' employment -- absenteeism, bad attitude, and refusal to follow instruction-- was not credible. In addition, even when the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to Appellant, it cannot be concluded that it could persuade a reasonable jury that the employer had discriminated against the employee.
A party may not overcome a motion for summary judgment by merely demonstrating some factual dispute exists. Instead, he must convince the court there is a genuine issue of material fact relating to a component of his claim that must be determined by the trier of fact. In this case, Appellant failed to identify any issues of fact material to whether age was a determinative factor in his termination. Consequently, the hearing examiner properly granted Appellee's summary judgment motion.
Affirmed.
J. Kite delivered the opinion for the court.
Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court
Case Name: Rollins v. Wyoming Tribune-Eagle
Citation: 2007 28
URL: http://tinyurl.com/2kqsn5
Docket Number: 06-48
Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County, Honorable, Peter G. Arnold Judge
Representing Appellant (Plaintiff): Mitchell E. Osborn, Cheyenne, Wyoming.
Representing Appellee (Defendant): Corinne E. Rutledge and James C. Kaste of Lathrop & Rutledge, Cheyenne, Wyoming.
Date of Decision: February 16, 2007
Issue: Whether the Compliance Officer for the Department of Employment, the Hearing Officer at the contested case hearing, and the District Court properly determined that Appellant failed to present any evidence establishing that age actually played a role in the Appellee's decision to terminate him.
Holding: A three-stage analysis is used to prove discrimination when no direct evidence of age discrimination exists. At the first stage, the plaintiff must prove a prima facie case of discrimination. The plaintiff must show that (1) s/he is within the protected age group; (2) s/he was doing satisfactory work; (3) s/he was discharged; and (4) the position was subsequently filled by a younger person. If the plaintiff satisfies these prima facie requirements, the case enters the next stage. In this second stage, the burden of production moves to the defendant. The defendant has to present a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for its action. If the defendant articulates a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its action, then the burden of persuasion moves back to the plaintiff. In this third stage of the discrimination analysis, the plaintiff must show that age was a determinative factor in the defendant's employment decision, or show that the defendant's explanation for its action was merely pretext. Failure to come forward with evidence of pretext will entitle the defendant to judgment. If no material facts are in dispute concerning the pretextuality of defendants' actions, summary judgment is appropriate.
In the present case, when the three stage burden-shifting analysis is applied, it can be concluded Appellee was entitled to a summary judgment on Appellant's claim of age discrimination. Although Appellant may have established a prima facie case of discrimination, Appellee provided sufficient evidence demonstrating Appellant's supervisors were having problems with his attitude, his work attendance, and disruptive behavior with co-workers. Appellant failed to present sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact to show that age was the determinative factor in his dismissal or that Appellee's employment decision was pretextual.
Although Appellant's supervisor had made questionable ageist comments in order to establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding pretext on the basis of ageist remarks, the employee must show a nexus between the discriminatory statements and the termination decision. In other words, the employee must show that age played an actual role in the termination decision and had a determinative influence on the outcome. Age-related comments referring directly to the employee who is discharged may support an inference of discrimination; however, isolated comments are typically too abstract to support a finding of age discrimination. Stray discriminatory remarks are insufficient to create a jury question because they do not establish the requisite nexus between the comment and the termination decision. When the comments are isolated and there is no showing they are related to the challenged employment action, they are insufficient to show discriminatory animus in termination decisions. In the present case, Appellant provides no details about the context or the timing of any of the ageist comments, and, significantly, none of Appellant' submissions indicate the remarks were made in connection with his discharge. In the absence of more detail as to the time and context of the comments or evidence showing that the comments were actually related to his discharge, Appellant simply has not raised a material issue of fact that age played a role in, or had a determinative influence on, Appellee's decision to terminate his employment.
Although Appellant was not required to disprove Appellee's reasons for his discharge, in order to satisfy the third stage and avoid summary judgment, he was required to show that a discriminatory reason more likely motivated the employer or that the employer's proffered explanation is unworthy of credence. The undisputed facts presented here do not demonstrate that Appellee's explanation for terminating Appellant' employment -- absenteeism, bad attitude, and refusal to follow instruction-- was not credible. In addition, even when the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to Appellant, it cannot be concluded that it could persuade a reasonable jury that the employer had discriminated against the employee.
A party may not overcome a motion for summary judgment by merely demonstrating some factual dispute exists. Instead, he must convince the court there is a genuine issue of material fact relating to a component of his claim that must be determined by the trier of fact. In this case, Appellant failed to identify any issues of fact material to whether age was a determinative factor in his termination. Consequently, the hearing examiner properly granted Appellee's summary judgment motion.
Affirmed.
J. Kite delivered the opinion for the court.
No comments:
Post a Comment