E.E.O.C. v. Marion Motel Associates
| Decision Date | 04 December 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 91-2070,91-2070 |
| Citation | 961 F.2d 211 |
| Parties | 69 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 416 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARION MOTEL ASSOCIATES, a/k/a Park Inn International, Defendant-Appellant. . Argued: |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Shelby. Richard L. Voorhees, Chief District Judge. (CA-89-185-SH-C)
Argued: Samuel James Ervin, IV, Byrd, Byrd, Ervin, Whisnant, McMahon & Ervin, P.A., Morganton, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Barbara L. Sloan, Office of the General Counsel, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
On Brief: Donald R. Livingston, Acting General Counsel, Gwendolyn Young Reams, Associate General Counsel, Lorraine C. Davis, Assistant General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Before RUSSELL, PHILLIPS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the Commission) brought an action against Marion Motel Associates d/b/a Park Inn International (Park Inn), alleging, inter alia, that Park Inn discharged four of its employees on the basis of their ages, in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 et seq. (ADEA). A jury found that Park Inn had willfully discriminated against two of the four employees. The district court denied Park Inn's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and its alternative motion for a new trial. In accordance with the jury's verdict, the court awarded the employees back pay and liquidated damages. Park Inn now appeals the district court's refusal to grant its motion for judgment n.o.v. on the issues of liability and liquidated damages. Finding no error in the district court's denial of Park Inn's post-trial motions, we affirm.
Park Inn is a small hotel in the mountains of North Carolina, owned since 1986 by Gary Hewitt. When he purchased the hotel, Hewitt lived in Virginia where he owned and operated a remodeling and construction business. After experimenting with various other arrangements, in June of 1987 Hewitt left the day-to-day operation of the hotel in the hands of a manager, Gary Hornaday. Hornaday reported directly to the comptroller of Hewitt's remodeling business, Charles Duff. Unknown to Hewitt and Duff, Hornaday was extremely ill with Hodgkins disease and was absent often during his tenure as manager. While Hornaday was manager, the hotel's physical plant deteriorated and the operation consistently lost money.
Aileen Peterson (Aileen), 48 years old, had been employed at the hotel since 1986 as the desk clerk on the first shift (7:00 am to 3:00 pm). Initially she was an hourly employee, but was appointed assistant manager and put on salary under Hornaday. Due to Hornaday's frequent absences, she undertook many of the manager's responsibilities. Effie Peterson (Effie), 49 years old, began working at the hotel in 1981, and, during the period at issue, worked as a second shift desk clerk (3:00 pm to 11:00 pm).
In December of 1987, Hewitt fired Hornaday and, with Duff's help, assumed direct control over Park Inn. In January of 1988 he undertook renovation of the hotel's physical plant. He also began running classified adds in the local newspaper seeking job applicants. In spite of the fact that all or almost all of the hotel's staff positions were filled, the initial advertisement stated that "all positions [were] available," including "desk personnel" and "supervisors." Later advertisements sought applications from "young and energetic persons with outgoing personalities." Hewitt testified that he began running the advertisements so that he would be prepared to fill vacancies in case any of the hotel employees resigned. However, Ms. Foster, one of the employees hired by Hewitt as a result of the advertisements, testified that Hewitt told her that he wished to replace the older desk clerks with young, attractive employees.
The newspaper advertisements generated dozens of applications. During the job interviews each applicant was presented with an application form that included a prominent section summarizing the requirements of the ADEA. That section instructed applicants not to provide information regarding their ages unless the employer certified that age was a necessary qualification for the job. Hewitt and Duff nevertheless asked the applicants their ages and marked their responses on the application forms. Duff testified that he collected this information to avoid violating child labor laws. As a result of the interviews, Park Inn hired five new desk clerks ranging in age between 19 and the mid-30's.
In addition to the five new desk clerks, Hewitt hired Mary Foster as the new assistant manager of the hotel. Foster, 44 years old, was described by witnesses as "youthful" and "very attractive." On the date Foster was hired, Aileen Peterson was still the assistant manager of the hotel.
Aileen testified that on the morning of January 28, 1988 she reported to work as usual, although she had heard rumors from other hotel employees that she was to be replaced that day. Before Aileen began work Duff walked into the desk area with Ms. Foster and introduced her to Aileen as the new assistant manager. Aileen answered, "You'll have to get someone to cover the desk." Duff responded, "Are you quitting?" Aileen said that she was. Soon thereafter Duff handed Aileen her final paycheck. 1 Duff did not tell Aileen that she could remain an employee of the hotel in some other capacity, although Hewitt and Duff claim that this was their intention. Aileen summarized her understanding of the events that morning by testifying that "Hewitt did not tell me he was replacing me, but it was obvious he was." The record indicates that, following Aileen's departure, Foster doubled as the assistant manager and first shift desk clerk-the same combination of duties that had been carried out by Aileen.
In early January of 1988, Hewitt asked Effie if she could work "some" on the third shift. According to her testimony, Effie understood this to be a request that she occasionally substitute for the third shift desk clerk. She agreed, saying that her mother was sick and required care at night, but that she could call on her brother occasionally to help care for her mother. On February 3, Park Inn began advertising for new employees, and hired a 19 year old woman as second shift desk clerk.
One or two days after the February 3 advertisement first appeared, Hewitt told Effie that she was being moved permanently to the third shift. According to her testimony, Effie told Hewitt that she could not change shifts permanently because her mother required care. 2 Hewitt responded that she would have to transfer to the third shift because he wanted to make some changes on the second shift. Effie told Hewitt that she would learn any new techniques he wanted to use on the second shift. Hewitt declined to accept this offer, saying that "you can't teach an old dog new tricks." A week later a new work schedule was posted without Effie's name on it. Effie asked Foster, the new assistant manager, whether her name's absence meant that she no longer had a job. Foster responded in the affirmative.
The charges of age discrimination were tried to a jury 3 which found that Park Inn willfully violated the ADEA by discharging Aileen and Effie because of age. 4 Park Inn moved for judgment n.o.v., and, in the alternative, for a new trial. The court denied the motions, and this appeal followed. On it, Park Inn only challenges the district court's denial of its motions for judgment n.o.v., claiming that the evidence was insufficient to support the finding of liability and, in any event, the award of liquidated damages.
In reviewing the denial of a motion for judgment n.o.v. we apply the same standard as did the district court; that is, we ask whether the record, when viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, contains evidence sufficient to support the jury's verdict. Herold v. Hajoca Corp., 864 F.2d 317, 319 (4th Cir. 1988). If there is sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict, we must defer to the judgment of the jury even were we to disagree with its assessment of that evidence. Duke v. Uniroyal, Inc., 928 F.2d 1413, 1417 (4th Cir. 1991).
Park Inn contends that the Commission failed to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination as to either Aileen or Effie. To establish a prima facie case of age discrimination under the ADEA 5 a plaintiff must show (1) that she is between the ages of 40 and 70 and is thus covered by the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. § 631(a), (2) that she has suffered an unfavorable employment action by an employer covered by the act, and (3) that the unfavorable act occurred under circumstances in which the employee's age was a determining factor in the action in the sense that but for her employer's motive to discriminate against her because of her age, she would not have suffered the action. Lovelace v. Sherwin-Williams Co., 681 F.2d 230, 238 (4th Cir. 1982).
In most ADEA cases (indeed in most employment discrimination cases brought under federal law) the only, or principally, disputed issue is that of discriminatory motive. See Lovelace, 681 F.2d at 239. Protected status and the suffering of an unfavorable employment action at the hands of the employer typically are not in genuine issue-are necessarily conceded by the employer. This case is atypical in that regard. Park Inn's primary defense at trial and its principal argument on appeal...
To continue reading
Request your trial