Rea v. Martin Marietta Corp., 93-1101

• Decision Date: 20 June 1994
• Docket Number: No. 93-1101,93-1101
• Citation: 29 F.3d 1450
• Parties: 65 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1751 Alvin REA, Gordon Keepers, Robert Reynolds, Barbara Weightman, Plaintiffs, and Barbara Van Den Arend, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARTIN MARIETTA CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit

Page 1450

29 F.3d 1450

65 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1751

Alvin REA, Gordon Keepers, Robert Reynolds, Barbara Weightman, Plaintiffs, and Barbara Van Den Arend, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARTIN MARIETTA CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 93-1101.

United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.

June 20, 1994.

Todd J. McNamara of Robinson, Waters, O'Dorisio and Rapson, P.C., Denver, CO, for plaintiff-appellant.

John R. Webb (Troy Andrew Eid with him on the brief), of Holme Roberts & Owen LLC, Denver, CO, for defendant-appellee.

Before WHITE, Associate Justice (Ret.), ^* ANDERSON and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.

BALDOCK, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff Barbara Van Den Arend appeals the district court's entry of summary judgment in favor of Defendant Martin Marietta Corporation on her age discrimination claim, Age Discrimination Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. Secs. 621-34 ("ADEA"). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from 1975 until she was laid off on January 18, 1991. From 1975 to 1984, Plaintiff served as an executive secretary at Defendant's Bethesda, Maryland headquarters and repeatedly received favorable reviews. In 1984, Plaintiff transferred to Defendant's Denver, Colorado facility. Defendant promoted Plaintiff to a Labor Grade 41 at this time. Plaintiff worked in the area of property management until 1989, then transferred to the Material Nonconformance area. In early 1990, Plaintiff assumed an assignment as an associate analyst in Defendant's Material Control, Department 983X ("Dept. 983X").

In evaluating the performance of its employees, Defendant utilized annual Performance Appraisal Reviews ("PARs"). On both her 1989 and 1990 PARs, Plaintiff received a rating of "expected," the middle category on a five-category rating scale. In 1984, Plaintiff received her first and only commendation and her last promotion.

Beginning in 1988, Defendant engaged in massive cutbacks of personnel due to a sharp decrease in space exploration contracts with the federal government. On January 18, 1991, as part of this reduction in force, nine of the thirty-six Dept. 983X employees, including Plaintiff, were laid off. ¹ All of the employees who were laid off were over the age of forty. Of the remaining twenty-seven employees, six were forty years of age or older.

After consulting with three of Plaintiff's immediate supervisors, Celia Spinner selected Plaintiff for layoff. The manager of Dept. 983X, Ken France, approved the decision. Spinner testified that Plaintiff was selected for layoff based on Plaintiff's performance as reflected in her recent PARs, and Plaintiff's 1990 "ranking." This 1990 ranking was the result of a system utilized by Defendant to rank employees within their respective work groups. The rankings reflected the department supervisor's determination of the value of an employee's contributions to the company, relative to the employee's peers. In the event of a reduction in force, Defendant's lay-off policy directed management to take into account an employee's departmental ranking. ² Plaintiff ranked last in the 1990 Dept. 983X ranking of Labor Grade 41s.

On June 19, 1991, Plaintiff, together with four other plaintiffs, sued Defendant for age discrimination pursuant to the ADEA. On July 22, 1991, Defendant moved for summary judgment against Plaintiff and Robert Reynolds. ³ After conducting a hearing, the district court granted Defendant's motion. Plaintiff appeals.

We review the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same standard as the district court. Hooks v. Diamond Crystal Specialty Foods, Inc., 997 F.2d 793, 796 (10th Cir.1993). "[W]e examine the record to determine if any genuine issue of material fact was in dispute; if not, we determine if the substantive law was correctly applied." Applied Genetics Int'l, Inc. v. First Affiliated Sec., Inc., 912 F.2d 1238, 1241 (10th Cir.1990). When reviewing the record for genuine issues of material fact, we construe the pleadings and documentary evidence in favor of the party opposing the motion. Id. However, to survive summary judgment, the nonmoving party cannot rest on its pleadings and must "make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986).

In a reduction of force case, a plaintiff demonstrates a prima facie case of age discrimination by showing (1) she was within the protected age group; (2) she was adversely affected by the employment decision; (3) she was qualified for the position at issue; and (4) she was treated less favorably than younger employees during the reduction in force. Branson v. Price River Coal Co., 853 F.2d 768, 771 (10th Cir.1988). After the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the defendant to articulate a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment decision. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 1824, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). "The [defendant] need not persuade the court that it was actually motivated by the proffered reasons, but satisfies its burden merely by raising a genuine issue of fact as to whether it discriminated against the plaintiff." Faulkner v. Super Valu Stores, Inc., 3 F.3d 1419, 1425 (10th Cir.1993) (internal quotations omitted). Once the defendant meets its burden of production by offering a legitimate rationale in support of its employment decision, the burden shifts back again to the plaintiff to show that the defendant's proffered reasons were a pretext for discrimination. McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 804-05, 93 S.Ct. at 1825-26. This burden merges with the plaintiff's ultimate burden of persuading the court that she has been the victim of intentional discrimination. Texas Dep't of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 256, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 1095, 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981).

For purposes of its summary judgment motion, Defendant conceded that Plaintiff established a prima facie case of age discrimination. In response, Defendant advanced the following two legitimate nondiscriminatory justifications for Plaintiff's layoff: (1) economic conditions within the aerospace industry dictated mass layoffs, ⁴ and (2) lay-off decisions were based on departmental rankings and Plaintiff was ranked at the bottom of her labor grade. Defendant having advanced these legitimate justifications, the only remaining issue in this case is whether Plaintiff has presented specific facts significantly probative to support an inference that Defendant's proffered justifications were a pretext for discrimination. See Cone v. Longmont United Hosp. Ass'n, 14 F.3d 526, 530 (10th Cir.1994); see also Drake v. City of Fort Collins, 927 F.2d 1156, 1160 (10th Cir.1991) (in summary judgment setting, plaintiff must raise a genuine fact question as to whether defendant's reasons are pretextual).

A plaintiff demonstrates pretext by showing either "that a discriminatory reason more likely motivated the employer or ... that the employer's proffered explanation is unworthy of credence." Burdine, 450 U.S. at 256, 101 S.Ct. at 1095. The plaintiff need not prove the defendant's reasons were false, Faulkner, 3 F.3d at 1425, or "that age was the sole motivating factor in the employment decision," EEOC v. Prudential Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 763 F.2d 1166, 1170 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 946, 106 S.Ct. 312, 88 L.Ed.2d 289 (1985). Rather, the plaintiff must show that age actually played a role in the defendant's decisionmaking process and had a determinative influence on the outcome. Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, --- U.S. ----, ----, 113 S.Ct. 1701, 1706, 123 L.Ed.2d 338 (1993). In resisting summary judgment, the plaintiff "must be given a full and fair opportunity to demonstrate by competent evidence that the presumptively valid reasons for [her termination] were in fact a cover-up for a [ ] discriminatory decision." McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 805, 93 S.Ct. at 1826. In evaluating the plaintiff's evidence, we must determine whether the evidence interpreted in the light most favorable to the plaintiff could persuade a reasonable jury that the employer had discriminated against the plaintiff. Hooks, 997 F.2d at 798. "If no facts relating to the pretextuality of the defendant's action remain in dispute, summary judgment is appropriate." Hooks, 997 F.2d at 798.

Plaintiff has presented no direct evidence of discriminatory intent relating to her layoff, but offers evidence, the totality of which, she claims creates an inference that Defendant's proffered justifications for selecting her for layoff were a pretext for discrimination. Plaintiff's evidence includes: (1) she had always performed her work satisfactorily; (2) she was never informed of her ranking; (3) statistical evidence that shows a 1 in 2,500 probability that all ten individuals laid off in Dept. 983X would be over the age of forty if such decisions were age neutral; (4) the manager of Dept. 983X had made age discriminatory comments in the past, and a corporate officer had stated "we might as well hire more lawyers because we are going to lay these older folks off ... we can get younger people for less money;" (5) Plaintiff was not offered the position of parts planner or PAGE parts planner and (a) she was as qualified as other younger applicants, (b) a younger employee who ranked below Plaintiff in the 1989 rankings was selected as a PAGE parts planner, and (c) virtually all of the parts planners and PAGE parts planners selected were under the age of forty; (6) Defendant had a policy to exclude older workers from designation as "high potential" employees; (7) Defendant's lay-off policy required seniority to be considered in any lay-off decision involving close rankings, and Defendant failed to so consider Plaintiff's seniority; and (8) an older Labor Grade 43 employee was laid off while younger employees ranked...