Employer's Motion for Summary Judgment Denied in Age Discrimination Case

In Garner v. Ward Corporation of Pennsylvania, 2008 WL 4678687 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 20, 2008), Judge Kim Gibson of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania recently addressed an employer's motion for summary judgment in an age discrimination case, setting forth with admirable clarity the standards to be employed in addressing motions for summary judgment in employment discrimination cases. In Garner, the plaintiff, Gloria Garner, alleged that she had been terminated from her employment with Ward Corporation of Pennsylvania due to her age. After the parties completed discovery, Ward moved for summary judgment.

The court initially found that there was insufficient "direct" evidence of age discrimination in the record to overcome Ward's motion with respect to claims based on direct evidence. The court then reviewed whether there was sufficient "indirect" evidence of discrimination to preclude summary judgment in favor of the employer. In this evaluation, the court applied the familiar McDonnell-Douglas burden shifting approach and, as is the case with most summary judgment motions in employment cases, the court's decision turned largely on whether the plaintiff/employee was able to satisfy the court that disputed factual issues existed with respect to whether the employer's articulated non-discriminatory reasons for the termination were "pretexts" for discrimination. The court observed that establishing pretext requires a plaintiff to "submit evidence which (1) casts doubt upon the legitimate reason proffered by the employer such that a fact-finder could reasonably conclude that the reason was a fabrication; or (2) would allow the fact-finder to infer that discrimination was more likely than not a motivating or determinative cause of the employee's termination." In other words, according to the court, a plaintiff must "demonstrate such weaknesses, implausibilities, inconsistencies, incoherencies, or contradictions in an inference that Plaintiff's discharge was motivated by age animus." The court determined that under these standards Ward's motion for summary judgment should be denied, because "[t]he evidence . . . goes beyond a simple disagreement with Ward Corp.'s reasons for terminating her. The lack of clarity in terms of her duties and position and the mis-characterization of her performance are sufficient to undermine the credibility of the reasoning proffered by Ward Corp."

Michael J. Betts

Betts, Hull & Klodowski LLC

November 17, 2008