Summary
The Third Circuit, sitting en banc, reviewed summary judgment in an Age Discrimination in Employment Act action brought by Anthony J. Chipollini after his termination by Spencer Gifts. The court held that a plaintiff may use circumstantial or indirect evidence to challenge an employer's asserted nondiscriminatory reason and that the record presented genuine issues of material fact concerning pretext, requiring reversal of summary judgment.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court improperly granted summary judgment in an ADEA termination action by requiring direct evidence that age was a determinative factor.
- Whether circumstantial or indirect evidence challenging the credibility of an employer's stated nondiscriminatory reasons can create a genuine issue of material fact concerning pretext and discriminatory intent.
- Whether the district court improperly weighed competing inferences and resolved disputed factual issues in favor of the employer on summary judgment.
Holdings
- An ADEA plaintiff need not produce direct or 'smoking gun' evidence of discriminatory intent to avoid summary judgment; circumstantial or indirect evidence may be used to establish that the employer's stated reason was pretextual and that age was a determinative factor.
- The record contained sufficient evidence from which a factfinder could question Spencer's stated reasons for terminating Chipollini and infer intentional discrimination; therefore, summary judgment was improper.
- Summary judgment was inappropriate because the issue of pretext turned on the employer's credibility and on disputed factual inferences that were for a jury to resolve.
Key quotations
“We agree with the plaintiff and amicus curiae the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that a defendant employer is not entitled to summary judgment merely by showing the plaintiff's inability to prove by direct evidence that the defendant's proffered reason is a pretext for age discrimination.” (814 F.2d at 895)
“Because the plaintiff may meet in alternate ways his burden to show that age was a determinative factor in his discharge, the plaintiff is entitled to show that the employer's explanation was pretextual by proffering evidence which is circumstantial or indirect as well as that which shows directly discriminatory animus ('smoking gun' evidence).” (814 F.2d at 895)
“The proffered reason for discharge is a subjective one. The plaintiff challenges the defendant's post-litigation articulation of its intent and the documentary evidence can be viewed as supporting the plaintiff's challenge. Consequently, the issue of pretext turns on Spencer's credibility and is not appropriate for resolution on a summary judgment motion.” (814 F.2d at 902)
Factual background
Anthony J. Chipollini worked for Spencer Gifts as construction manager from November 1971 until October 1982 and generally received satisfactory performance evaluations, pay increases, and bonuses. After Spencer's parent company imposed a moratorium on new-store construction, Spencer terminated Chipollini at age 58 and his duties were assumed by Ralph Liberatore, who was 43. Spencer gave expense reduction, reduced construction activity, and alleged performance and cooperation problems as reasons for the termination, while Chipollini presented evidence challenging the factual support and credibility of those explanations.
Procedural history
Chipollini sued Spencer Gifts, alleging that his termination at age 58 and replacement by a younger employee violated the ADEA. After discovery, the district court granted Spencer's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the record did not permit Chipollini to prove age discrimination. The Third Circuit reversed, holding that the record raised genuine issues of material fact concerning whether Spencer's stated reasons were pretextual and that those issues entitled Chipollini to a jury trial.
Remand instructions
The district court's entry of summary judgment for Spencer Gifts was reversed. The opinion states that Chipollini was entitled to a jury trial on the merits; the matter was therefore to proceed consistently with that ruling.