181 F.3d 99 (6th Cir. 1999), 98-3079, Abney v. Electronic Data Systems Corp.
|Citation:||181 F.3d 99|
|Party Name:||Illen A. ABNEY, et al., Plaintiffs, Bryan P. JENSEN; Thomas E. Zimpfer, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ELECTRONIC DATA SYSTEMS CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.|
|Case Date:||May 18, 1999|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit|
This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA6 Rule 28 and FI CTA6 IOP 206 regarding use of unpublished opinions)
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
Before SILER, BATCHELDER and COLE, Circuit Judges.
COLE, Circuit Judge.
Bryan P. Jensen and Thomas E. Zimpfer challenge the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Electronic Data Systems Corporation (EDS) on their age discrimination claims arising from EDS's termination of their employment. For the reasons that follow, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
EDS, a company that provides a variety of information technology services to corporate and business clients, is organized into approximately forty Stategic Business Units (SBUs). One of these SBUs is devoted to providing services to General Motors Acceptance Corporation (GMAC). In 1993, the GMAC SBU underwent restructuring due to financial difficulties. Dan Butler, president of the GMAC SBU, determined that, in order to meet revised financial targets, a five percent reduction in force was necessary. In April 1993, Butler held a staff meeting of those employees who directly report to him, explaining the revised financial targets and the need for staff reductions. Butler instructed his staff to compile employee rankings, focusing on each employee's contribution to the organization, and to terminate the lowest ranked employees. By the end of May 1993, EDS had terminated seventy-one GMAC SBU employees.
In May 1995, nine terminated employees filed age discrimination claims against EDS alleging disparate treatment in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 et seq. During discovery, three of the plaintiffs stipulated to a dismissal of their claims. EDS sought summary judgment as to the remaining six plaintiffs. In opposition to that request, plaintiffs submitted numerous exhibits and deposition testimony. In addition, plaintiffs proffered a statistical analysis by an expert, Dr. Dennis Brady, which examined the workforce reduction within the GMAC SBU. As a result of his analysis, Dr. Brady concluded that EDS's terminations resulted in a statistically significant adverse impact upon older employees.
On July 31, 1997, the district court granted summary judgment to EDS with respect to the claims of Jensen and Zimpfer, but denied summary judgment as to the other four plaintiffs. Jensen and Zimpfer now appeal.
We review a district court's grant of summary judgment de novo. See Ercegovich v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 154 F.3d 344, 349 (6th Cir.1998). Summary judgment is appropriate "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP