Teresa A. Ansell v. Aledade, Inc.

Ansell · United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia · December 18, 2025 · No. 2:24-cv-00640

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia grants Aledade, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment in Teresa A. Ansell’s age-discrimination action under the West Virginia Human Rights Act. The court holds that Ansell established a prima facie case based on her termination while a substantially younger employee with identified performance issues was retained, but concludes that she failed to show that Aledade’s stated reasons—cost reduction, business needs, relative qualifications, and performance concerns—were pretextual.

Holdings

  1. Ansell established a prima facie case because she was within the protected age class, suffered an adverse employment action, and showed an inference of discrimination through evidence that a substantially younger, similarly situated employee identified as having performance issues was retained.
  2. Aledade carried its burden of production by articulating legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for implementing the reduction in force, selecting Ansell's position for elimination, and retaining younger employees.
  3. Ansell failed to produce sufficient evidence that Aledade's stated reasons were false or a pretext for age discrimination.
  4. Ansell failed to show that age was a significant motivating factor in Aledade's decision under a mixed-motive theory.
  5. Summary judgment was appropriate for Aledade because Ansell failed to rebut Aledade's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason under either a pretext or mixed-motive analysis.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Ansell established a prima facie case of age discrimination under the West Virginia Human Rights Act.
  2. Whether Aledade articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for selecting Ansell's position for elimination.
  3. Whether Ansell produced sufficient evidence to show that Aledade's stated reason was pretextual or that age was a significant motivating factor under a mixed-motive theory.
  4. Whether summary judgment was appropriate on Ansell's WVHRA age-discrimination claim.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (35)

  • Lester v. Gilbert, 85 F. Supp. 3d 851 (S.D. W. Va. 2015)(followed)
  • News & Observer Publ'g Co. v. Raleigh-Durham Airport Auth., 597 F.3d 570 (4th Cir. 2010)(followed)
  • Runyon v. Hannah, No. 2:12-1394, 2013 WL 2151235 (S.D. W. Va. May 16, 2013)(followed)
  • Williams v. Griffin, 952 F.2d 820 (4th Cir. 1991)(followed)
  • Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986)(followed)
  • Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986)(followed)
  • Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986)(followed)
  • Dash v. Mayweather, 731 F.3d 303 (4th Cir. 2013)(followed)
  • Barefoot v. Sundale Nursing Home, 193 W. Va. 475, 457 S.E.2d 152 (1994)(followed)
  • Shepherdstown Volunteer Fire Dep’t v. State ex rel. W. Va. Hum. Rts. Comm’n, 172 W. Va. 627, 309 S.E.2d 342 (1983)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 35.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…