Schultz v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.
| Decision Date | 05 February 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 96-1703,96-1703 |
| Citation | 105 F.3d 1258 |
| Parties | 75 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 385, 69 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 44,513 Matti I. SCHULTZ, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORPORATION, Defendant/Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
David Heimos, Clayton, MO, argued, for Plaintiff/Appellant.
Gerard T. Carmody, St. Louis, MO, argued (Thomas C. Walsh and Paula Finlay Luepke, on the brief), for Defendant/Appellee.
Before WOLLMAN and MURPHY Circuit Judges, and TUNHEIM, 1 District Judge.
Matti Schultz was discharged by his employer, the McDonnell Douglas Corporation, which he then sued for age discrimination under 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., and the Missouri Human Rights Act, Mo.Rev.Stat. § 213.010 et seq. 2 After a six day trial a jury found in favor of McDonnell Douglas, and the district court 3 ordered judgment entered in favor of the corporation. Schultz appeals from the denial of his motion for a new trial based on the exclusion of certain statistical evidence. We affirm.
Schultz was a principal technical specialist when he was discharged as part of a reduction in force. In the two performance evaluations before the reduction in force, Schultz had been given the lowest overall ratings of any of the sixteen specialists in his department. Schultz, who was fifty-seven and the fourth oldest specialist in his department when discharged, was the only specialist in that department to be terminated. At trial he attempted to introduce statistical evidence demonstrating a pattern of age discrimination by McDonnell Douglas. The statistics were based on data taken from the company's Production Operations Division, which consisted of 3,731 employees.
The district court excluded the statistical evidence from the divisional level because it was not based on comparable employees, citing Nitschke v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 68 F.3d 249, 252 (8th Cir.1995), and Hutson v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 63 F.3d 771, 777 (8th Cir.1995). The statistics dealt with a much larger group of employees than the district court found relevant; they were not comparable in its view because they did not include performance evaluations.
Schultz contends that he had offered additional evidence of age animus at the departmental level to show the reasons offered for discharge were pretextual. He also claims that there was evidence demonstrating the involvement of managers at the higher divisional level in his termination. 4 This would have made the divisional level statistical evidence relevant, and it should have been admitted. He seeks a new trial so that he can present the statistics.
We review the denial of a motion for a new trial under an abuse of discretion standard. McKnight v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 36 F.3d 1396, 1400 (8th Cir.1994). The admissibility of evidence is also within the trial court's discretion. The question presented on the post-trial motion was whether exclusion of the evidence was "so prejudicial as to require a new trial which would be likely to produce a different result." O'Dell v. Hercules, Inc., 904 F.2d 1194, 1200 (8th Cir.1990).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the statistical evidence. While it is true that MacDissi v. Valmont Indus. Inc., 856 F.2d 1054 (8th Cir.1988), indicated that other evidence of discrimination may add to the relevance of statistical evidence, it did not contradict the rule that the statistics must evaluate comparable employees to be meaningful indicators of pretext....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cross v. Cleaver
...granted to avoid a miscarriage of justice." Id.Keeper v. King, 130 F.3d 1309, 1314 (8th Cir.1997); accord Schultz v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 105 F.3d 1258, 1259 (8th Cir.1997) ("We review the denial of a motion for a new trial under an abuse of discretion standard," citing McKnight v. John......
-
Morgan v. United Parcel Service of America, Inc.
...`standard operating procedure.'") (quoting Teamsters, 431 U.S. at 336, 97 S.Ct. 1843); see also Schultz v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 105 F.3d 1258, 1259-60 (8th Cir. 1997) (probative value of statistical evidence that does not reflect significant differences among employees would be prejudic......
-
Martin v. Perdue
...but must evaluate the treatment of comparable employees to be meaningful indicators of pretext. See Schultz v. McDonnel Douglas Corp., 105 F.3d 1258, 1259 (8th Cir. 1997); Roxas, 90 F.3d at 316-17. "When different decision-makers are involved, two decisions are rarely similarly situated in ......
-
Bevan v. Honeywell, Inc.
...H & BC. Certainly, "statistics must evaluate comparable employees to be meaningful indicators of pretext," Schultz v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 105 F.3d 1258, 1259 (8th Cir.1997), petition for cert. filed, (U.S. May 21, 1997) (No. 96-1855), and "statistical evidence that does not reflect sig......
-
Defendant's Prior Acts
...and positions held by the other employees and thus makes these statistics prejudicial and misleading. Schultz v. McDonald Douglas Corp., 105 F.3d 1258, 1259-60 (8th Cir.), cert. denied , 522 U.S. 812, 118 S. Ct. 56, 139 L.Ed.2d 20 (1997); Fallis v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 944 F.2d 743, 746 (10th ......
-
Age discrimination
...that does not reflect significant differences among employees would be prejudicial and misleading.” Schultz v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. , 105 F.3d 1258, 1259-60 (8th Cir.), cert. denied , 118 S. Ct. 56 (1997). Ninth: The Ninth Circuit determined that statistics which did not isolate a 40-and......