Carlton v. Mystic Transportation, Docket No. 98-7973

• Decision Date: 01 August 1998
• Docket Number: Docket No. 98-7973
• Citation: 202 F.3d 129
• Parties: (2nd Cir. 2000) CHARLES R. CARLTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MYSTIC TRANSPORTATION, INC., MYSTIC BULK CARRIERS, INC., and LEONARD BALDARI, Defendants-Appellees
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

Page 129

202 F.3d 129 (2nd Cir. 2000)

CHARLES R. CARLTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MYSTIC TRANSPORTATION, INC., MYSTIC BULK CARRIERS, INC., and LEONARD BALDARI, Defendants-Appellees.

Docket No. 98-7973

August Term, 1998

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SECOND CIRCUIT

Argued: May 20, 1999

Decided: Jan. 28, 2000

Plaintiff Charles R. Carlton appeals from a grant of summary judgment entered July 10, 1998 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Trager, J.) in favor of defendants Mystic Transportation, Inc., Mystic Bulk Carriers, Inc. and Leonard Baldari.

Reversed and remanded.

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

ETHAN A. BRECHER, New York, New York (Christine A. Palmieri, Liddle & Robinson, L.L.P., New York, New York, of counsel), for Plaintiff-Appellant.

RONALD B. GOODMAN, New York, New York (Christy L. Reuter, Robinson Brog Leinwand Greene Genovese & Gluck P.C., New York, New York, of counsel), for Defendants-Appellees.

Before:CARDAMONE, JACOBS, Circuit Judges, and McMAHON^*., District Judge

CARDAMONE, Circuit Judge:

Plaintiff Charles R. Carlton, formerly employed as director of marketing by defendants Mystic Transportation, Inc., Mystic Bulk Carriers, Inc. and Leonard Baldari, appeals from a grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants entered July 10, 1998 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Trager, J.). Carlton asserts he was fired on account of his age, but defendants declare plaintiff's discharge occurred as part of a company-wide reduction-in-force and because of his mediocre job performance.

One of the arguments the employer raises in this employment discrimination case is the "same actor inference." The premise underlying this inference is that if the person who fires an employee is the same person that hired him, one cannot logically impute to that person an invidious intent to discriminate against the employee. Such an inference is strong where the time elapsed between the events of hiring and firing is brief. Here it is not. And, the enthusiasm with which the actor hired the employee years before may have waned with the passage of time because the relationship between an employer and an employee, characterized by reciprocal obligations and duties, is, like them, subject to time's "wrackful siege of battering days." William Shakespeare, Sonnet LXV, in The Complete Works of William Shakespeare, (W.J. Craig ed., Oxford Univ. Press 1928).

In reviewing a grant of summary judgment for an employer, we examine the record to see if any genuine issues of material fact exist regarding whether the non-discriminatory reasons the employer advanced for the employee's discharge were instead a pretext for intentional age discrimination. Because we find several unresolved issues of material fact in this record, we reverse and remand.

BACKGROUND

Mystic Transportation, Inc. is a trucking company that delivers heating oil within the New York metropolitan area, and Mystic Bulk Carriers, Inc. transports gasoline, asphalt, cement, and jet fuel in the same market. The two companies have consolidated financial statements and are inextricably intertwined. Leonard Baldari is Mystic's president and sole shareholder. The defendants will be collectively referred to as Mystic.

In August 1988, at age 49, plaintiff Carlton was hired as a salesman by Baldari, who shortly thereafter appointed him as director of marketing. The principal duties of that position included soliciting new accounts with the aim of increasing his employer's delivery income. Mystic's delivery income increased each year that Carlton was employed, and nearly doubled overall from $12,485,480 in 1989 to $23,622,567 in 1994. Carlton also brought in 65 new accounts.

Due to a mild winter in 1995, Mystic's profits dropped $1,400,000 in that year's first quarter from those the company had enjoyed in the first quarter of 1994. In April 1995 Carlton, then 56 years old, was terminated. He alleges that during a meeting regarding his discharge, Baldari suggested he should "retire." Ten other employees were also discharged in early 1995.

One year prior to plaintiff's dismissal, Mystic hired Lydia Gounalis (age 38) to assist with marketing. Immediately after plaintiff was fired, Gounalis assumed his position as director of marketing. Three months later, Mystic hired a former employee, John Oravets (age 31), to work in marketing. Oravets' previous employment with defendant had been terminated in 1993 for insubordination. After he was rehired, Oravets took over the director of marketing position in June 1996.

Carlton filed an age discrimination complaint with the EEOC on September 25, 1995. Mystic stated in response that it had a deficit of $1.5 million in the first quarter of 1995 - it turned out Mystic actually had an operating profit of $584,108 during that quarter, but it was about $1.4 million less than the previous year's profits for the same period. Mystic also stated that Carlton's performance was not a factor in its decision to discharge him. After its investigation, the EEOC issued a determination in defendants' favor.

On August 19, 1996 Carlton commenced the instant action in the Eastern District alleging a violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. 621 et seq. (1994); the New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law 296(1)(a) (McKinney Supp. 1999); and the Administrative Code of the City of New York 8-101. In contrast to the EEOC proceeding, Mystic averred in the district court that it discharged Carlton not only as part of a reduction-in-force due to the economic downturn it experienced, but also because of his poor performance. The district court granted Mystic's motion for summary judgment finding that plaintiff had failed to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination. It further stated that even assuming arguendo that plaintiff had made out a prima facie case, he did not adequately demonstrate that his employer's purported reasons for discharging him were a pretext for age discrimination.

This appeal followed.

DISCUSSION

I Legal Principles

A. Summary Judgment

We review a district court's grant of summary judgment de novo, see D'Amico v. City of New York, 132 F.3d 145, 149 (2d Cir. 1998), applying the same standard as the district court. This standard states that summary judgment may not be granted unless there are no genuine issues of material fact present, so that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The burden of showing that no genuine factual dispute exists rests upon the moving party, see Gallo v. Prudential Residential Servs., Ltd. Partnership, 22 F.3d 1219, 1223 (2d Cir. 1994), and in assessing the record to determine if such issues do exist, all ambiguities must be resolved and all inferences drawn in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S 242, 255 (1986). This remedy that precludes a trial is properly granted only when no rational finder of fact could find in favor of the non-moving party. See D'Amico, 132 F.3d at 149; Gallo, 22 F.3d at 1224.

Because this is a discrimination case where intent and state of mind are in dispute, summary judgment is ordinarily inappropriate. See Gallo, 22 F.3d at 1224; Montana v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 869 F.2d 100, 103 (2d Cir. 1989); Meiri v. Dacon, 759 F.2d 989, 998 (2d Cir. 1985). Thus, a trial court should exercise caution when granting summary judgment to an employer where, as here, its intent is a genuine factual issue.

B. The ADEA and the Burden of Proof

The ADEA provides that it is "unlawful for an employer . . . to discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's age." 29 U.S.C. 623(a)(1). This protection extends to employees who are at least 40 years old. See id. 631(a). Plainly, the purpose of the ADEA is to prohibit discrimination in employment on account of age. As Judge Learned Hand explained, "statutes should be construed . . . with some imagination of the purposes which lie behind them." Lehigh Valley Coal Co. v. Yensavage, 218 F. 547, 552 (2d Cir. 1914). Hence, it is important for a court when reviewing this kind of case to bear in mind the findings Congress made at the time of the ADEA's enactment. Among those findings was that older workers are disadvantaged in retaining employment and regaining it after being discharged, and that unemployment among older workers, relative to younger ones, was high. See id. 621(a).

In an employment discrimination case, the plaintiff has the initial burden of "proving by the preponderance of the evidence a prima facie case of discrimination." Texas Dep't of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 252-253 (1981); see St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 506 (1993) (noting plaintiff's burden); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973) (same). In order to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination, the plaintiff must show that he was (1) within the protected age group; (2) qualified for the position; (3) discharged; and (4) that such discharge occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination. See Norton v. Sam's Club, 145 F.3d 114, 118 (2d Cir. 1998); Gallo, 22 F.3d at 1224. The burden of establishing a prima facie case is not a heavy one. One might characterize it as minimal. See St. Mary's Honor Ctr., 509 U.S. at 506; Scaria v. Rubin, 117 F.3d 652, 654 (2d Cir. 1997) (per curiam); Chambers v. TRM Copy Ctrs. Corp., 43 F.3d 29, 37 (2d Cir. 1994) (describing the burden of production as de minimis).

If the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, a rebuttable presumption of discrimination arises. See Stratton v. Department for the Aging, 132 F.3d 869, 879 (2d Cir. 1997); Gallo, 22...