Steckl v. Motorola, Inc., No. 82-5524

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtBefore TRASK, KENNEDY and POOLE; POOLE
Citation703 F.2d 392
Parties31 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 705, 31 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 33,494 Rudolph STECKL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MOTOROLA, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
Docket NumberNo. 82-5524
Decision Date04 April 1983

Page 392

703 F.2d 392
31 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 705,
31 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 33,494
Rudolph STECKL, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MOTOROLA, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
No. 82-5524.
United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
Argued Jan. 10, 1983.
Submitted Feb. 1, 1983.
Decided April 4, 1983.

Richard S. Cohen, Lewis & Roca, Phoenix, Ariz., for plaintiff-appellant.

Lawrence Allen Katz, Streich, Lang, Weeks & Cardon, Phoenix, Ariz., for defendant-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.

Before TRASK, KENNEDY and POOLE, Circuit Judges.

POOLE, Circuit Judge:

Rudolph Steckl appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of his employer, Motorola, in Steckl's action under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 621 et seq. (the ADEA). Steckl contends that the order is improper because the company's explanation for denying him a promotion was a pretext for age discrimination rather than a legitimate business reason. He also argues summary judgment is inappropriate because it was his intention to prove pretext by attacking the motivation and intent of Motorola's witnesses on cross-examination.

Steckl had worked for Motorola for 15 years in various management positions. A new position, formally titled "Senior Products Manager, Opto Products, Chips and Strategic New Programs," was created in 1976. Motorola refused to promote Steckl, who was then 50 years old, and gave the job to Nicholas Schaefer, a younger man. Steckl claims that Motorola failed to promote him because of age discrimination while Motorola contends that Schaefer was promoted because of his qualifications and technical expertise.

A plaintiff under the ADEA has the ultimate burden of proving that age was a "determining factor" in an employer's decision affecting him. Douglas v. Anderson, 656 F.2d 528, 531 (9th Cir.1981); Kelly v.

Page 393

American Standard, Inc., 640 F.2d 974, 984 (9th Cir.1981). We agree with the district court that Steckl had established a prima facie case of discrimination as required by Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 252-253, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 1093, 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981) and McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-804, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 1824-1825, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). He was clearly within the protected class, had applied for an available position for which he was qualified, and was denied a promotion which was given to a younger person. The result was creation of an inference of discrimination.

In the face of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
335 practice notes
  • Patterson v. Barney, CASE NO. CV F 10-2084 LJO BAM
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California
    • February 23, 2012
    ...substantial circumstantial evidence of pretext, summary judgment for the [defendant] must be affirmed."); Steckl v. Motorola, Inc., 703 F.2d 392, 393 (9th Cir. 1983) (failure to "produce any specific, substantial evidence of pretext" support summary judgment for employer); Br......
  • McIntosh v. Geithner, CASE NO. CV F 11-0054 LJO SKO
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California
    • May 31, 2011
    ...substantial circumstantial evidence of pretext, summary judgment for the [defendant] must be affirmed."); Steckl v. Motorola, Inc., 703 F.2d 392, 393 (9th Cir. 1983) (failure to "produce any specific, substantial evidence of pretext" support summary judgment for employer); Br......
  • Lial v. County Of Stanislaus, CASE NO. CV F 09-1039 LJO JLT
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California
    • November 23, 2010
    ...substantial circumstantial evidence of pretext, summary judgment for the [defendant] must be affirmed."); Steckl v. Motorola, Inc., 703 F.2d 392, 393 (9th Cir. 1983) (failure to "produce any specific, substantial evidence of pretext" support summary judgment for employer); Br......
  • Robinson v. Geithner, CASE NO. CV F 05-1258 LJO SKO
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California
    • May 31, 2011
    ...substantial circumstantial evidence of pretext, summary judgment for the [defendant] must be affirmed."); Steckl v. Motorola, Inc., 703 F.2d 392, 393 (9th Cir. 1983) (failure to "produce any specific, substantial evidence of pretext" support summary judgment for employer); Br......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
335 cases
  • Patterson v. Barney, CASE NO. CV F 10-2084 LJO BAM
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California
    • February 23, 2012
    ...and substantial circumstantial evidence of pretext, summary judgment for the [defendant] must be affirmed."); Steckl v. Motorola, Inc., 703 F.2d 392, 393 (9th Cir. 1983) (failure to "produce any specific, substantial evidence of pretext" support summary judgment for employer); Brundage, 57 ......
  • McIntosh v. Geithner, CASE NO. CV F 11-0054 LJO SKO
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California
    • May 31, 2011
    ...and substantial circumstantial evidence of pretext, summary judgment for the [defendant] must be affirmed."); Steckl v. Motorola, Inc., 703 F.2d 392, 393 (9th Cir. 1983) (failure to "produce any specific, substantial evidence of pretext" support summary judgment for employer); Brundage, 57 ......
  • Lial v. County Of Stanislaus, CASE NO. CV F 09-1039 LJO JLT
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California
    • November 23, 2010
    ...and substantial circumstantial evidence of pretext, summary judgment for the [defendant] must be affirmed."); Steckl v. Motorola, Inc., 703 F.2d 392, 393 (9th Cir. 1983) (failure to "produce any specific, substantial evidence of pretext" support summary judgment for employer); Brundage, 57 ......
  • Robinson v. Geithner, CASE NO. CV F 05-1258 LJO SKO
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California
    • May 31, 2011
    ...and substantial circumstantial evidence of pretext, summary judgment for the [defendant] must be affirmed."); Steckl v. Motorola, Inc., 703 F.2d 392, 393 (9th Cir. 1983) (failure to "produce any specific, substantial evidence of pretext" support summary judgment for employer); Brundage, 57 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT