Shenton v. Aerojet Rocketdyne, Inc.
| Decision Date | 07 September 2018 |
| Docket Number | CASE NO. 3:18-cv-00038 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia |
| Parties | ROBERT SHENTON, Plaintiff, v. AEROJET ROCKETDYNE, INC., Defendant. |
Plaintiff Robert Shenton has worked for Defendant Aerojet Rocketdyne, Inc. for over forty years. Shenton, sixty-three years old when he filed the complaint in 2017, alleges age discrimination and retaliation in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Shenton claims Aerojet demoted him from his role as Vice President of Operations and passed him over for promotions based on his age. Shenton alleges that Aerojet maintained a "high potential" program designed to target only younger employees for advancement, and that Aerojet executives made discriminatory comments about his age and retirement plans. Aerojet has moved to dismiss both claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
Shenton has pled sufficient facts to state a discrimination claim under the ADEA, and his discrimination claim will thus survive. Shenton's retaliation claim, however, will be dismissed without prejudice, as Shenton has failed to plausibly allege that the decisionmakers who demoted him and passed him over for promotions were aware of his protected activity. Moreover, Shenton has failed to plausibly allege temporal proximity between his protected activity and the adverse employment actions he alleges.
Defendant Aerojet Rocketdyne, Inc. is a rocket and missile propulsion manufacturer serving the space, missile defense, and tactical systems sectors. (Complaint ¶¶ 4-5). Plaintiff Robert Shenton has been continuously employed by Aerojet since 1977. (Id. ¶¶ 3, 7). Shenton turned sixty-three in 2017. (Id. ¶ 1).
After a steady succession of promotions, Shenton was named Aerojet's Chief Operating Officer (COO) in February 2006. (Id. ¶ 9). When Aerojet eliminated the COO position in May 2010, Shenton was renamed Vice President of Sustainable Operations (VPSO). (Id. ¶ 10). In June 2013, Shenton was named Vice President of Operations (VPO), a role which gave him "direct" oversight of 1,500 employees.1 (Id.).
"[A] few years ago" it "became evident" to Shenton that Aerojet viewed him as "too old for further advancement." (Id. ¶ 9). Two incidents prompted this belief. First, Aerojet maintained a program designed to identify and promote "high potential" employees, nicknamed "hi-pots." (Id. ¶ 15). The company's former president, Warren Boley, "made it clear" that the hi-pot designation was reserved for "young employees" and rejected some proposed hi-pot candidates as "too far along in their career." (Id. ¶¶ 18-19). Shenton complained to his supervisors and Human Resources about this "discriminatory conduct." (Id. ¶ 21). Second, Shenton presents several comments made by Aerojet executives as evidence of age discrimination. For instance, Boley asked Shenton and another job applicant about their "age and retirement plans." (Id. ¶ 22). A "Senior VP" made similar inquiries. (Id.). Again, Shenton "reported all of these incidents" to Human Resources. (Id. ¶¶ 22-23).
"Shortly after" reporting these "improper statements," Aerojet removed Shenton from his role as VPO in March 2015. (Id. ¶¶ 24, 28). With the exception of one administrative assistant, Shenton lost responsibility for all "direct reports" of approximately 1,500 employees. (Id. ¶ 28). Aerojet replaced Shenton with Ron Felix, a "younger employee." (Id.). Although the demotion did not entail a decrease in compensation, Shenton's removal as VPO was nonetheless a serious "demotion in status and reporting structure." (Id. ¶¶ 24, 28).
After Shenton's March 2015 demotion, Aerojet reinstated the COO position, filling it at least twice in 2015. (Id. ¶ 29). Aerojet also filled "at least two" senior Vice President positions. (Id.). Shenton alleges that Aerojet posts all job openings to current employees but failed to post these positions. (Id. ¶¶ 32-33). Although "highly qualified," Shenton was not considered for these openings or invited to interview. (Id. ¶¶ 30, 33, 36). At some unspecified point in time, Shenton filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). (Id. ¶ 25). This suit followed.
A motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of a complaint to determine whether a plaintiff has properly stated a claim; it "does not resolve contests surrounding the facts, the merits of a claim, or the applicability of defenses." Republican Party of N.C. v. Martin, 980 F.2d 943, 952 (4th Cir. 1992). The Court must take all facts and reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff, disregard any legal conclusions, and not credit any formulaic recitations of the elements. Iqbal v. Ashcroft, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 557 (2007).
Before filing suit under the ADEA, a plaintiff must first "file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC." Jones v. Calvert Group, Ltd., 551 F.3d 297, 300 (4th Cir. 2009). A plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative remedies "deprives the federal courts of subject matter jurisdiction over the claim." Id. at 300-301. See also Bridgeforth v. Potter, No. 3:10-CV-00030, 2011 WL 3102422, at *7 (W.D. Va. July 25, 2011) (). The complaint's discussion of exhaustion is limited to a brief statement that Shenton "fil[ed] a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC." (Complaint ¶ 25).
Aerojet initially argued in its brief that Shenton failed to "fully or clearly allege" exhaustion,2 (dkt. 7 at 6, n.5), but then conceded at oral argument that Shenton had fully exhausted his administrative remedies. This concession comes after Aerojet acknowledged in its brief that Shenton filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC on December 28, 2015, and that the EEOC subsequently issued a right-to-sue letter on February 27, 2017. (Dkt. 7 at 6, n.5).
Although Aerojet no longer challenges exhaustion, a federal court must nonetheless "satisfy itself of its subject matter jurisdiction even if the parties do not raise the issue." MDC Innovations, LLC v. Hall, 726 F. App'x 168, 172 (4th Cir. 2018). See also Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999) (). Given Shenton's general allegation of having filed a charge with the EEOC, and Aerojet'sconcessions in briefing and at oral argument that Shenton both filed a charge and received a right-to-sue letter, the Court is satisfied that Shenton exhausted all available administrative remedies before the EEOC. Accordingly, the Court concludes that it has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter.
The ADEA makes it illegal for an employer to discriminate against an employee "with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's age." 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(1). Likewise, an employer may not "limit, segregate, or classify his employees" so as to "deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual's age." Id. § 623(a)(2). Additionally, the ADEA prohibits employers from retaliating against any employee who "has opposed" activity that violates the ADEA. Id. § 623(d).
In a single count, Shenton brings both a discrimination claim and a retaliation claim. Aerojet moves to dismiss both. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will deny the motion to dismiss with respect to Shenton's discrimination claim but will grant the motion with respect to Shenton's retaliation claim.
To state a discrimination claim under the ADEA, Shenton must plausibly allege that: (1) he is a member of a protected class, namely individuals who were at least forty years old at the time of the alleged discrimination; (2) he suffered adverse employment action; (3) he was performing his job duties at a level that met his employer's "legitimate expectations" at the time of the adverse action; and (4) the positions in question remained open or were filled by someone outside the protected class. See Hill v. Lockheed Martin Logistics Mgmt., 354 F.3d 277, 285 (4thCir. 2004), abrogated on other grounds by Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338 (2013). See also Arthur v. Pet Dairy, 593 F. App'x 211, 216-17 (4th Cir. 2015) (same elements); Bodkin v. Town of Strasburg, 386 F. App'x 411, 413-14 (4th Cir. 2010) (same).
Taking Shenton's factual allegations as true, Shenton has alleged sufficient facts to state a discrimination claim. Shenton alleges that (1) he turned sixty-three in 2017, meaning he was over forty and a member of the "protected class" at the time of the alleged adverse actions, (Complaint ¶ 1); (2) he suffered an "adverse employment action" when he was demoted from the VPO position and passed over for promotion opportunities after reporting age-based comments and Aerojet's "high potential" program, (id. ¶¶ 15-17; 28-45); (3) he "met or exceeded Aerojet's performance standards at all times," (id. ¶ 11); and (4) he was replaced as VPO by a "younger employee." (Id. ¶ 28). Taken together, these factual allegations are sufficient to state a claim for discrimination under the ADEA.
Aerojet raises multiple arguments to the contrary, two of which merit discussion. First, Aerojet argues that Shenton has failed to establish that age was the "but-for" cause of the alleged adverse employment actions. (Dkt. 7 at 8). To be sure, a plaintiff alleging age discrimination under the ADEA must eventually prove...
To continue reading
Request your trial