Girten v. McRentals, Inc.

• Decision Date: 25 July 2003
• Docket Number: No. 02-3444.,02-3444.
• Citation: 337 F.3d 979
• Parties: James D. GIRTEN; Carol S. Girten, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. McRENTALS, INC., a Missouri Corporation; Larry McDonald; Richard J. Whalen, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

337 F.3d 979

James D. GIRTEN; Carol S. Girten, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. McRENTALS, INC., a Missouri Corporation; Larry McDonald; Richard J. Whalen, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 02-3444.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: March 14, 2003.

Filed: July 25, 2003.

Rik N. Siro, argued, Kansas City, MO (Heidi J. Moyer, Kansas City, on the brief), for appellant.

C. Brooks Wood, argued, Kansas City, MO (Matthew J. Salzman, Kansas City, MO, on the brief), for appellee.

Before BOWMAN, RILEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

MELLOY, Circuit Judge.

James and Carol Girten appeal the district court's¹ grant of summary judgment for the defendants, which dismissed the plaintiffs' claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-34 and the Missouri Human Rights Act, MO. REV. STAT. §§ 213.010-137. For all practical purposes the plaintiffs' claims under the ADEA and the Missouri Human Rights Act are identical. We affirm.

I.

James and Carol Girten were the manager and assistant manager at the defendants' rent-to-own store for more than ten years. During this period they received no indications that their performance was unsatisfactory.

One of James Girten's duties was to record the number of hours employees worked and submit this information to the central accounting office. In February of 2000, Richard Whalen, then McRentals' chief operating officer, received a complaint that Mr. Girten had under reported the hours of an employee. While looking into the complaint, Mr. Whalen spoke to two additional employees who claimed that Mr. Girten had also under reported their hours. At least one employee reported that he had previously spoken with Mr. Girten and was unable to resolve the problem.

On February 25, 2000, Mr. Whalen confronted Mr. Girten with these concerns. Mr. Girten denied that he had ignored any such problems and wanted to know which employees had made complaints. Mr. Whalen refused to provide the information, and Mr. Girten was forced to resign. Although there is some evidence that Mrs. Girten then resigned voluntarily, we will assume that she was also forced to resign. At the time of their termination, James Girten was sixty-two and Carol Girten was sixty-one.

Mr. Whalen replaced the Girtens with Joe Wasson as manager and Angela Gindlesberger as assistant manager. Mr. Wasson was fifty-three, and, according to Mr. Whalen, Ms. Gindlesberger was in her "late 20's to early 30's." Mr. Wasson quit after two days on the job. In a resignation letter to McRentals, Mr. Wasson expressed that, after taking part in a repossession, he was unable to fulfill the responsibilities of a manager. Ms. Gindlesberger later replaced Mr. Wasson.

II.

The standard of review for a district court's grant of summary judgment is de novo. Dammen v. UniMed Med. Ctr., 236 F.3d 978, 980 (8th Cir.2001). To withstand a motion for summary judgment under the ADEA the plaintiffs must establish a prima facie case by proving they were: (1) "member[s] of the protected age class," (2) "performing adequately" in their jobs, (3) fired, and (4) "replaced by a younger person after dismissal." Keathley v. Ameritech Corp., 187 F.3d 915, 919 (8th Cir. 1999). There is no dispute that the Girtens were members of a protected class or performing inadequately in their jobs-with the exception of the specific events which allegedly prompted their dismissal. Although Mr. & Mrs. Girten technically resigned, there is no question that the company would have fired both of them if they had not done so.

Although Mr. Girten's initial replacement, Joe Wasson, was nine years younger, this age difference may not be significant enough to demonstrate age discrimination. See O'Connor v. Consolidated Coin Caterers Corp., 517 U.S. 308, 313, 116 S.Ct. 1307, 134 L.Ed.2d 433 (1996) ("In the age-discrimination context, such an inference [that an employment decision was based on an illegal criterion] cannot be drawn from the replacement of one worker with another worker insignificantly younger."). We assume, however, that a prima facie case has been established as we consider the defendant's summary judgment motion.

III.

Once the plaintiff has established a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the defendant "to `produc[e] evidence that the plaintiff was rejected, or someone else was preferred, for a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason.'" Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prod., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 142 120 S.Ct. 2097, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000) (citing Texas Dep't of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 254, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981)). "This burden is one of production, not persuasion; it `can involve no credibility assessment.'" Reeves, 530 U.S. at 133, 120 S.Ct. 2097 (citing St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 509, 113 S.Ct. 2742, 125 L.Ed.2d 407 (1993)). McRentals presented evidence that Mr. Girtens' termination was based on the company's belief that Mr. Girten (1) under reported employees' hours, (2) ignored employees' complaints about the matter, and (3) lied about the existence of the complaints when confronted by Mr. Whalen. These reasons for the firing were outlined in a letter later given to Mr. Girten.

Because McRentals presented a nondiscriminatory explanation for its decision, the Girtens must "prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the legitimate reasons offered by the defendant were not its true reasons, but were a pretext for discrimination." Burdine, 450 U.S. at 253, 101 S.Ct. 1089. The possibility of pretext was established by evidence indicating that Mr. Girten had in fact responded to the employees' complaints. The Girtens also contend that McRentals' hiring of Mr. Wasson to replace Mr. Girten must be a sham because Mr. Wasson quit after two days and was replaced by the significantly younger Ms. Gindlesberger.

IV.

Establishing a prima facie case in addition to presenting evidence of pretext can be, but is not necessarily, sufficient to withstand a motion for summary judgment. The court in Reeves addressed this issue and concluded:

Whether judgment as a matter of law is appropriate in any particular case will depend on a number of factors. Those include the strength of the plaintiff's prima facie case, the probative value of the proof that the employer's explanation is false, and any other evidence that supports the employer's case and that properly may be considered on a motion for judgment as a matter of law.

Reeves, 530 U.S. at 148-49, 120 S.Ct. 2097.

In this case, the plaintiff's prima facie case is not particularly strong. The nine-year age difference between Mr. Girten and his replacement may not be sufficient to infer age discrimination. Cf. Schiltz v. Burlington N. R.R., 115 F.3d 1407, 1412-13 (8th Cir.1997) (holding that a five-year age disparity is insufficient to infer discrimination) with Keathley v. Ameritech Corp., 187 F.3d 915 (8th Cir.1999) (holding that a fourteen-year age difference is sufficient to infer age discrimination). Any inference of age discrimination in this case is assured only if one assumes that the hiring of Mr. Wasson to replace Mr. Girten was pretextual and that the defendants always intended for Ms....