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

• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
• Writing for the Court: Before TRASK, KENNEDY and POOLE; POOLE
• Citation: 703 F.2d 392
• Parties: 31 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 705, 31 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 33,494 Rudolph STECKL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MOTOROLA, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
• Docket Number: No. 82-5524
• Decision Date: 04 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...