Danny Lambert v. Mazer Discount Home Centers, Inc.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 9/25/09 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS SPECIAL TERM, 2009 2080491 Danny Lambert v. Mazer Discount Home Centers, Inc. Appeal from J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t (CV-07-2019) Court THOMAS, J u d g e . This brought i s an a p p e a l pursuant to f r o m a summary t h e Alabama j u d g m e n t i n an a c t i o n Age Discrimination i n Employment A c t ("AADEA"), c o d i f i e d a t A l a . Code 1975, § 2 5 - 1 ¬ 20 e t s e q . 2080491 F a c t s and P r o c e d u r a l Danny Centers, Lambert Inc. was employed History f o r Mazer ( " M a z e r " ) , f o r a l m o s t 29 Discount years. Home During the l e n g t h y t e r m o f h i s employment, L a m b e r t w o r k e d h i s way up i n the promoted t o the p o s i t i o n company and was eventually v i c e president of marketing. of As v i c e p r e s i d e n t o f m a r k e t i n g , Lambert's d u t i e s i n c l u d e d purchasing d u t i e s f o r the b u i l d i n g supply and buying," kitchen-and-bath which negotiating planning purchasing describes departments the task of of Mazer; seeking out t h e p u r c h a s e o f c l o s e o u t m e r c h a n d i s e ; and and buying times p r o d u c t s and or, f o r and in other types of words, and media planning advertising for and Mazer stores. Mazer i s a f a m i l y - o w n e d b u s i n e s s , and i t s p r e s i d e n t originally J.B. M a z e r . the o f f i c e o f p r e s i d e n t and h i s s o n , M i k e M a z e r , t o o k According "deal I n 2005, h o w e v e r , J.B. r e t i r e d t o L a m b e r t , M i k e ' s management s t y l e t h a t o f J.B. L a m b e r t s a i d differed t h a t Mike tended t o was from over. from "micromanage" more t h a n J.B. Under the presidency of presidents like L a m b e r t were t r e a t e d d i f f e r e n t l y 2 both J.B. and Mike, vice than other 2080491 employees. F o r e x a m p l e , v i c e p r e s i d e n t s were n o t r e q u i r e d t o t u r n i n time sheets o r otherwise account o t h e r employees. in positions f o r t h e i r time like M i k e e x p l a i n e d t h a t t h e v i c e p r e s i d e n t s were of t r u s t and t h a t they were officers company, so t h e y were n o t r e q u i r e d t o a c c o u n t of the for their time b e c a u s e t h e y were e x p e c t e d t o a l w a y s have t h e i n t e r e s t s o f t h e company a t h e a r t . performed I n a d d i t i o n , a l t h o u g h J.B. and Mike at least yearly p r e s i d e n t - l e v e l employees, no w r i t t e n performance reviews always of the v i c e - t h e r e v i e w s were i n f o r m a l a n d o r a l ; records r e f l e c t i n g the substance of those reviews or any o t h e r c o n v e r s a t i o n s r e g a r d i n g performance were w r i t t e n o r made a p a r t o f a v i c e p r e s i d e n t ' s p e r s o n n e l file. Lambert a d m i t t e d t h a t Mike than one o c c a s i o n a f t e r M i k e regarding Lambert the time Lambert h a d a v a c a t i o n home h a d spoken t o o k o v e r a s p r e s i d e n t i n 2005 spent i n Santa maintenance where month. Rosa, periodically, the properties away i n Destin, r e n t e d when he was n o t u s i n g i t , property w i t h h i m on more the Florida, office. which he and another p i e c e o f r e n t a l Florida. Both and Lambert are located Lambert a l s o purchased from properties traveled required t o the area approximately twice per a home i n t h e B i r m i n g h a m a r e a 3 2080491 i n 2 0 0 5 ; t h a t home a p p a r e n t l y r e q u i r e d e x t e n s i v e renovation. L a m b e r t ' s r e n t a l - p r o p e r t y m a i n t e n a n c e a n d h i s home r e n o v a t i o n s appeared t o Mike to shift Lambert's b u s i n e s s e v e n when he was a t work. that "he wouldn't know" f o c u s away from However, L a m b e r t whether Mike was Mazer testified irritated or c o n c e r n e d o v e r Lambert's p e r f o r m a n c e as a r e s u l t o f t h e f o c u s Mike felt Lambert placed on h i s r e n t a l property a n d home renovations. During e a r l y department responsible 2006, regarding issues arose i n the kitchen-and-bath kitchen f o r ordering. cabinets, which The d e p a r t m e n t Lambert had difficulty m e e t i n g c u s t o m e r o r d e r s on s e v e r a l o c c a s i o n s b e c a u s e p o p u l a r c a b i n e t s were n o t i n s t o c k . was certain However, t h e d e p a r t m e n t a l s o s u f f e r e d from a problem w i t h o v e r s t o c k e d items t h a t would not sell. order A c c o r d i n g t o Mike, Lambert's the right problems cabinets at the right failure to properly times had caused the that manifested themselves i n the kitchen-and-bath department i n e a r l y 2006. Lambert a d m i t t e d t h a t Mike had e x p r e s s e d d i s p l e a s u r e over the problems i n the k i t c h e n - a n d - b a t h department. Mike had s p e c i f i c a l l y criticized 4 He s a i d t h a t him f o r ordering t h e wrong 2080491 types of b u i l d i n g materials or cabinets. t h a t he knew t h a t M i k e was u n h a p p y w i t h with the out-of-stock kitchen duties. move with Lambert's the t h a t he became i n c r e a s i n g l y handling toward more "high-dollar" values of his advertising spots on television, of the t e l e v i s i o n to commercials, t o t a k e a f r e s h a p p r o a c h t o t h e way p r i n t ads were u s e d b y company. Mike specifically Lambert had n o t been p r o a c t i v e effective television only stated that he felt that i n l o o k i n g f o r new ways t o be i n h i s advertising duties. Mike had communicated h i s d e s i r e the him over the i s s u e s M i k e s a i d t h a t he w a n t e d t o move away f r o m r a d i o , t o increase the production and testified cabinets. In a d d i t i o n , Mike t e s t i f i e d dissatisfied Lambert Lambert a d m i t t e d that f o r " h i g h - d o l l a r " spots on a n d a d e s i r e t o move away f r o m r a d i o a d v e r t i s i n g ; other issue related to advertising that Lambert a d m i t t e d t h a t M i k e h a d c o m p l a i n e d t o h i m a b o u t was t h e amount o f t i m e he s p e n t a t l u n c h e s w i t h h i s a d v e r t i s i n g contacts. By May 2006, M i k e h a d become so d i s s a t i s f i e d w i t h L a m b e r t that he d e c i d e d Mazer. him to discharge h i s employment with He t e l e p h o n e d L a m b e r t a n d a r r a n g e d f o r a m e e t i n g with on May 3, 2006. him from When L a m b e r t met w i t h M i k e , t h e company 5 2080491 c o n t r o l l e r , Dan Ward, was also i n attendance. Mike informed L a m b e r t t h a t he was b e i n g d i s c h a r g e d , and M i k e o f f e r e d L a m b e r t a s e v e r a n c e p a c k a g e and a t e r m i n a t i o n a g r e e m e n t . that Mike did not tell him why he was Lambert s a i d being discharged; h o w e v e r , Ward t e s t i f i e d t h a t M i k e b e g a n t o e x p l a i n h i s r e a s o n s but Lambert told Mike t h a t he d i d not Lambert d i d not a c c e p t the severance want to them. p a c k a g e , and he d i d n o t s i g n t h e t e r m i n a t i o n a g r e e m e n t . A t t h e t i m e he was f r o m h i s employment, L a m b e r t was hear discharged 47 y e a r s o l d . A f t e r he d i s c h a r g e d L a m b e r t , M i k e d i v i d e d and r e a s s i g n e d Lambert's d u t i e s to e x i s t i n g p e r s o n n e l . he did not Lambert's hire anyone position S m y t h i a , who as or vice promote anyone p r e s i d e n t of to take marketing. s e r v e d as e x e c u t i v e v i c e p r e s i d e n t , was Lambert's a d v e r t i s i n g d u t i e s . location Mike t e s t i f i e d manager to D a v i d C o b b i n was purchasing manager, and After receiving a over David assigned promoted from he over took p u r c h a s i n g d u t i e s f o r the k i t c h e n - a n d - b a t h department. took over Lambert's d e a l - b u y i n g that Mike duties. right-to-sue letter from the Equal Employment O p p o r t u n i t y C o m m i s s i o n ( " E E O C " ) L a m b e r t s u e d M a z e r , alleging t h a t he had b e e n d i s c h a r g e d f r o m h i s employment i n 6 2080491 violation o f t h e AADEA. and d e n i e d l i a b i l i t y . on L a m b e r t ' s granted. Mazer answered Lambert's complaint M a z e r t h e n moved f o r a summary j u d g m e n t age-discrimination I n i t s judgment, claim, which the t r i a l the t r i a l court determined court that Lambert had f a i l e d t o p r e s e n t e v i d e n c e s u f f i c i e n t t o e s t a b l i s h a prima that, f a c i e c a s e o f age d i s c r i m i n a t i o n u n d e r t h e AADEA a n d even evidence i f he h a d , he h a d f a i l e d demonstrating nondiscriminatory pretextual. that reason Mazer's for Lambert a p p e a l e d to present proffered Lambert's sufficient legitimate, discharge was t o t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t , which t r a n s f e r r e d the appeal t o t h i s court, pursuant t o A l a . Code 1975, § 1 2 - 2 - 7 ( 6 ) . Standard o f Review We r e v i e w a summary j u d g m e n t de n o v o ; we a p p l y t h e same s t a n d a r d as was a p p l i e d i n t h e t r i a l summary j u d g m e n t material court. A motion i s t o be g r a n t e d when no g e n u i n e f a c t e x i s t s and t h e moving p a r t y j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r of law. Rule for a issue of i s entitled to a 5 6 ( c ) ( 3 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. A p a r t y m o v i n g f o r a summary j u d g m e n t must make a p r i m a f a c i e showing fact "that t h e r e i s no g e n u i n e and t h a t [ i t ] i s e n t i t l e d 7 issue as t o any m a t e r i a l t o a j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f 2080491 law." R u l e 5 6 ( c ) ( 3 ) ; see Lee v. C i t y o f Gadsden , 592 1036, 1038 burden ( A l a . 1992). then shifts 2d at 1038 I f t h e movant meets t h i s b u r d e n , to the p r i m a f a c i e s h o w i n g by nonmovant to rebut the 'substantial evidence.'" (footnote So. omitted). 2d "the movant's L e e , 592 So. " [ S ] u b s t a n t i a l evidence i s e v i d e n c e o f s u c h w e i g h t and q u a l i t y t h a t f a i r - m i n d e d persons i n t h e e x e r c i s e o f i m p a r t i a l j u d g m e n t can r e a s o n a b l y i n f e r t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e f a c t s o u g h t t o be p r o v e d . " Life Assurance Co. of Florida, 1 9 8 9 ) ; see A l a . Code 1975, reviewing all 547 So. West v. 2d § 12-21-12(d). 870, Founders 871 (Ala. F u r t h e r m o r e , when a summary j u d g m e n t , t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t must the evidence i n a l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e view t o t h e nonmovant and must e n t e r t a i n a l l r e a s o n a b l e i n f e r e n c e s f r o m t h e e v i d e n c e t h a t a j u r y w o u l d be e n t i t l e d t o draw. See N a t i o n w i d e P r o p . & Cas. I n s . Co. v. DPF A r c h i t e c t s , P.C., 792 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) ; and Fuqua v. I n g e r s o l l - R a n d Co., 487 So. 2d 369, 372 591 So. 2d 486, ( A l a . 1991). Age This D i s c r i m i n a t i o n u n d e r t h e AADEA c a s e p r e s e n t s o n l y t h e s e c o n d t i m e t h a t an A l a b a m a a p p e l l a t e c o u r t has c o n s i d e r e d the merits 8 of a c l a i m brought 2080491 u n d e r t h e AADEA. 964 1 See R o b i n s o n v . A l a b a m a C e n t . C r e d i t U n i o n , So. 2d 1225 ( A l a . 2007) ( a f f i r m i n g a summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f an e m p l o y e r on an e m p l o y e e ' s brought pursuant to the age-discrimination AADEA). e m p l o y e r s , employment a g e n c i e s , The a worker from 40 y e a r s o f j o b r e t e n t i o n , compensation, or other t e r m s o r c o n d i t i o n s o f employment." § 25-1-21. In Robinson, o u r supreme c o u r t , a f t e r c o n s i d e r i n g t h e h o l d i n g s courts prohibits and l a b o r o r g a n i z a t i o n s " d i s c r i m i n a t [ i n g ] i n employment a g a i n s t age a n d o v e r i n h i r i n g , AADEA claim of federal i n A l a b a m a , a d o p t e d t h e same b u r d e n - s h i f t i n g analysis a p p l i e d t o f e d e r a l a g e - d i s c r i m i n a t i o n c l a i m s brought under t h e I n s e v e r a l o t h e r c a s e s , a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s have c o n s i d e r e d i s s u e s r e l a t i n g t o an AADEA c l a i m , s u c h a s t h e l i m i t a t i o n s p e r i o d a p p l i c a b l e t o an AADEA c l a i m , s e e B y r d v . D i l l a r d ' s , I n c . , 892 So. 2d 342 ( A l a . 2 0 0 4 ) , a n d H e d e g a r d v . BE&K, 923 So. 2d 315 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 5 ) ; t h e e f f e c t o f a s e t t l e m e n t o r r e l e a s e o f a n o t h e r c l a i m on an AADEA c l a i m , s e e D u n l a p v . R e g i o n s F i n . C o r p . , 983 So. 2d 374 ( A l a . 2007) ( a f f i r m i n g a summary j u d g m e n t i n favor o f an e m p l o y e r on an a g e d i s c r i m i n a t i o n c l a i m b r o u g h t u n d e r t h e AADEA on t h e b a s i s o f a r e l e a s e s i g n e d b y t h e e m p l o y e e ) , a n d W h i t s o n v. C i t y o f H o o v e r , [Ms. 1071468, J a n u a r y 16, 2009] So. 3d (Ala. 2009) ( r e v e r s i n g t h e d i s m i s s a l o f an AADEA c l a i m b e c a u s e a workers' compensation settlement d i d not r e l e a s e the c l a i m ) ; the t i m i n g o f t h e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f b o t h s o v e r e i g n and s t a t e a g e n t i m m u n i t y i n a c a s e b r o u g h t u n d e r t h e AADEA, s e e Ex p a r t e A u b u r n U n i v . , 6 So. 3d 478 ( A l a . 2 0 0 8 ) ; a n d w h e t h e r f e d e r a l law c l a i m s brought i n f e d e r a l c o u r t t o l l e d a s t a t e - l a w c l a i m b r o u g h t u n d e r t h e AADEA i n s t a t e c o u r t , s e e R e s t e r v. McWane, I n c . , 962 So. 2d 183 ( A l a . 2 0 0 7 ) . 1 9 2080491 federal Age D i s c r i m i n a t i o n i n Employment A c t ("ADEA"), U.S.C. § 621 e t s e q . R o b i n s o n , 964 So. 2d a t 1228-29. "[F]ederal courts considering the issue [of the b u r d e n o f p r o o f a p p l i c a b l e t o an AADEA c l a i m ] have n o t e d t h a t t h e p u r p o s e a n d p r o h i b i t i o n s o f t h e AADEA are similar to those of the federal Age D i s c r i m i n a t i o n i n Employment A c t , 29 U.S.C. § 621 e t seq. ('ADEA'), a n d c o n c l u d e d t h a t ADEA p r i n c i p l e s s h o u l d t h e r e f o r e g o v e r n i n AADEA c a s e s as w e l l . See, e.g., Bonham v. R e g i o n s M o r t g a g e , I n c . , 12 9 F. Supp. 2d 1315, 1321 (M.D. A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) ; s e e a l s o § 25-1-29, A l a . Code 1975 ( e x p r e s s l y a d o p t i n g as p a r t o f t h e AADEA t h e r e m e d i e s , defenses, and s t a t u t e s o f l i m i t a t i o n s a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e ADEA). Accordingly, t h e f e d e r a l c o u r t s have a p p l i e d t o AADEA c l a i m s t h e same evidentiary framework applied to federal age-discrimination claims. We agree that this f r a m e w o r k , w h i c h was a r t i c u l a t e d b y t h e Supreme Court of the United States i n McDonnell Douglas C o r p . v. G r e e n , 411 U.S. 792, 93 S. C t . 1817, 36 L. Ed. 2d 668 ( 1 9 7 3 ) , a n d Texas D e p a r t m e n t o f Community A f f a i r s v . B u r d i n e , 450 U.S. 248, 101 S. C t . 1 0 8 9 , 67 L. E d . 2d 207 ( 1 9 8 1 ) , i s t h e p r o p e r means b y w h i c h t o r e v i e w an AADEA c l a i m . The e v i d e n t i a r y f r a m e w o r k was s u m m a r i z e d as f o l l o w s i n D o o l e y v . A u t o N a t i o n USA C o r p . , 218 F. Supp. 2d 1270, 1278 (N.D. A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) : " ' " F i r s t , t h e p l a i n t i f f has t h e burden of proving by the preponderance of the evidence a prima facie case of discrimination. Second, i f t h e p l a i n t i f f succeeds i n p r o v i n g the prima facie case, the burden shifts t o the defendant 'to articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason f o r the employee's rejection.' Third, should the defendant carry t h i s 10 29 2080491 b u r d e n , t h e p l a i n t i f f must t h e n have an o p p o r t u n i t y t o p r o v e by a preponderance of the evidence that the legitimate reasons o f f e r e d by t h e d e f e n d a n t were n o t its t r u e r e a s o n s , b u t were a pretext for discrimination." " ' B u r d i n e , 450 U.S. a t 252-53, 101 S. C t . 1089 ( c i t a t i o n s omitted). At a l l times, p l a i n t i f f b e a r s t h e b u r d e n o f p e r s u a s i o n on the ultimate q u e s t i o n of whether the d e f e n d a n t a c t e d w i t h an u n l a w f u l m o t i v e . S t . M a r y ' s Honor C t r . v. H i c k s , 509 U.S. 502, 511, 113 S. C t . 2742, 125 L. Ed. 2d 407 (1993). I f the p l a i n t i f f does n o t p r o f f e r s u f f i c i e n t evidence to create a genuine i s s u e of m a t e r i a l f a c t r e g a r d i n g whether each of the defendant employer's articulated reasons i s p r e t e x t u a l , the employer i s e n t i t l e d t o j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w on t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s c l a i m . See Combs v. P l a n t a t i o n P a t t e r n s , 106 F.3d 1519, 1529 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1 9 9 7 ) . ' " R o b i n s o n , 964 In the So. 2d a t 1228-29. t h e summary-judgment o r d e r a p p e a l e d f r o m i n R o b i n s o n , t r i a l c o u r t h a d assumed t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f had e s t a b l i s h e d a prima facie case o f age t h a t a summary j u d g m e n t was had f a i l e d discrimination had concluded a p p r o p r i a t e because the p l a i n t i f f to present s u f f i c i e n t evidence t h a t the reason f o r the d i s c h a r g e p r o f f e r e d by t h e e m p l o y e r was at 1229. plaintiff and The supreme court, likewise, pretextual. assumed that i n Robinson had e s t a b l i s h e d a p r i m a f a c i e case 11 Id. the and 2080491 a n a l y z e d o n l y whether the p l a i n t i f f had p r e s e n t e d sufficient evidence t o c r e a t e a genuine i s s u e of m a t e r i a l f a c t r e g a r d i n g whether the the reason f o r the p l a i n t i f f ' s employer Robinson was p r e t e x t u a l . d i s c h a r g e p r o f f e r e d by I d . a t 1230-32. c o u r t d i d not s e t out the elements Thus, t h e r e q u i r e d t o make o u t a p r i m a f a c i e c a s e o f age d i s c r i m i n a t i o n u n d e r t h e AADEA. Because that the t r i a l Lambert establish create c o u r t i n t h e p r e s e n t case determined had f a i l e d a prima a fact legitimate, facie to present evidence both sufficient to case and t h a t Lambert had f a i l e d t o question regarding whether n o n d i s c r i m i n a t o r y reason the proffered f o r h i s d i s c h a r g e was p r e t e x t u a l , we w i l l a d d r e s s b o t h t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f a p r i m a facie case under under t h e AADEA a n d t h e d e m o n s t r a t i o n o f p r e t e x t t h e AADEA. The Prima F a c i e Case I n an AADEA c a s e , o u r supreme c o u r t h a s h e l d , a p l a i n t i f f must first Robinson, agreed establish facie 964 So. 2d a t 1228. that application the a prima cases applying case Because t h e ADEA of discrimination. o u r supreme should o f t h e AADEA, we t u r n t o f e d e r a l ADEA t o d e t e r m i n e e x a c t l y what a p l a i n t i f f 12 govern cases court the applying must p r o v e t o 2080491 establish a prima facie case of age discrimination. G e n e r a l l y , a p l a i n t i f f s e e k i n g t o e s t a b l i s h a prima f a c i e case of age d i s c r i m i n a t i o n must "prove member o f a p r o t e c t e d g r o u p , plaintiff group, was (4) was (2) p l a i n t i f f was d i s c h a r g e d , with plaintiff (1) p l a i n t i f f a person was outside qualified to the a (3) protected do the job." S t a n f i e l d v. A n s w e r i n g S e r v . , I n c . , 867 F.2d 1290, 1293 (11th Cir. and replaced that 1989). The trial court in the present case determined that Lambert had not e s t a b l i s h e d the elements of a p r i m a f a c i e case of age d i s c r i m i n a t i o n because he had failed to e v i d e n c e t h a t Mazer r e p l a c e d him w i t h a younger produce person. In i t s summary-judgment o r d e r , t h e t r i a l c o u r t s p e c i f i c a l l y n o t e d t h a t , i n some f e d e r a l c i r c u i t s , to have b e e n r e p l a c e d when h i s o r h e r d u t i e s a r e among e x i s t i n g similar, so employees who o r r e l a t e d work. F.2d 1457, not an e m p l o y e e i s n o t 1465 fact distributed have b e e n p e r f o r m i n g t h e same, See B a r n e s v. GenCorp., I n c . , 896 (6th C i r . 1990). i n d i c a t e , the considered that Although the t r i a l court d i d Mazer reassigned Lambert's d u t i e s t o a t l e a s t two o t h e r e m p l o y e e s who were o l d e r t h a n h i m -- S m y t h i a and M i k e -- a l s o w e i g h s 13 a g a i n s t the establishment 2080491 of a prima f a c i e case. 955, 958 proof (M.D. that someone the Fla. 1994) the (stating court with older, that because plaintiff age-discrimination substantially present S e t t l e v. K M a r t C o r p . , 857 was the plaintiff evidence r a i s i n g an F. Supp. there was replaced by failed to had inference of age discrimination). Lambert t a k e s the requirement younger issue with that employee. he the prove Lambert trial that points court's he out was adherence replaced that to by federal a age- d i s c r i m i n a t i o n c a s e s have n o t l i m i t e d t h e m s e l v e s s o l e l y t o one formulation See Stanfield, of 867 the elements F.2d at of 1294 a prima (stating, facie i n the case. context of a g e - d i s c r i m i n a t i o n c a s e u n d e r t h e ADEA, t h a t p r o v i n g t h a t was r e p l a c e d by "'the a younger p e r s o n " i s not particularly counsels against Pace v. Southern amorphous rigid Ry. nature application Sys., 701 of F.2d of essential" age [the] 1383, one that discrimination test'" 1387 (quoting (11th Cir. 1983))). B a s e d upon o u r r e v i e w cases, c o n c l u d e t h a t Lambert i s c o r r e c t i n a s s e r t i n g t h a t we h i s f a i l u r e t o p r o v e t h a t he was 14 of s e v e r a l and an age-discrimination r e p l a c e d by a y o u n g e r p e r s o n 2080491 does n o t , i n and of i t s e l f , p r i m a f a c i e c a s e o f age In or fact, prevent the e s t a b l i s h m e n t of a discrimination. i n cases i n v o l v i n g r e d u c t i o n s i n the workforce t h e e l i m i n a t i o n o f a p o s i t i o n by t h e e m p l o y e r , a plaintiff l a c k i n g d i r e c t e v i d e n c e o f age d i s c r i m i n a t i o n w o u l d be almost unable t o prove h i s or her case i f the requirement of showing his o r h e r r e p l a c e m e n t by a y o u n g e r i n d i v i d u a l were c o n s i d e r e d i m p e r a t i v e to the e s t a b l i s h m e n t of a prima f a c i e case. See, e.g., 609 B a r n e s v. S o u t h w e s t (11th federal C i r . 1987). c o u r t s have F o r e s t I n d u s . , I n c . , 814 F.2d 607, In fact, the recognition developed an of this alternative test for the e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f a p r i m a f a c i e c a s e o f age d i s c r i m i n a t i o n i n those types of cases: " [ T ] h i s C i r c u i t has h e l d t h a t a p l a i n t i f f i n a j o b - r e d u c t i o n c a s e can e s t a b l i s h a p r i m a f a c i e c a s e by d e m o n s t r a t i n g : (1) t h a t he was i n a p r o t e c t e d g r o u p and was a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t e d by an employment decision; (2) t h a t he was q u a l i f i e d t o assume another p o s i t i o n at the time of d i s c h a r g e or d e m o t i o n ; and (3) e v i d e n c e by w h i c h a f a c t f i n d e r might r e a s o n a b l y conclude t h a t the employer i n t e n d e d to d i s c r i m i n a t e i n r e a c h i n g the d e c i s i o n at i s s u e . W i l l i a m s v. G e n e r a l M o t o r s C o r p . , 656 F.2d 120, 129 (5th C i r . U n i t B 1 9 8 1 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 455 U.S. 943, 102 S. C t . 1439, 71 L. Ed. 2d 655 ( 1 9 8 2 ) . A l t h o u g h t h i s t e s t i s n o t 'the a l p h a and omega o f p o s s i b l e t e s t s i n t h e age d i s c r i m i n a t i o n c o n t e x t , ' Pace [v. S o u t h e r n R a i l w a y S y s t e m , 701 F.2d [1383,] 1387 [(11th Cir. 1983)], i t does establish the 15 2080491 proposition that the p l a i n t i f f ' s burden i s to introduce evidence that supports a reasonable i n f e r e n c e o f i n t e n t i o n a l age d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . " B a r n e s , 814 F.2d a t 609-10 ( f o o t n o t e o m i t t e d ) ; s e e a l s o B e n s o n v. T o c c o , I n c . , 113 F.3d 1203, 1208 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1 9 9 7 ) ; Mitchell v. W o r l d w i d e U n d e r w r i t e r s I n s . Co., 967 F.2d 565, 567-68 ( 1 1 t h Cir. 1992). M i k e t e s t i f i e d t h a t he d i d n o t r e p l a c e L a m b e r t b y h i r i n g anyone f o r or promoting president anyone to the p o s i t i o n o f m a r k e t i n g a n d t h a t he i n s t e a d d i v i d e d d u t i e s among t h r e e e x i s t i n g e m p l o y e e s . and position. Lambert was t h e need vice Lambert's Mike d i d n o t t e s t i f y , t h e e v i d e n c e does n o t e s t a b l i s h , t h a t M i k e ' s discharging of to reason f o r eliminate Lambert's The E l e v e n t h C i r c u i t C o u r t o f A p p e a l s h a s i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e a l t e r n a t i v e t e s t f o r e s t a b l i s h i n g a prima f a c i e case i s l i m i t e d to true reduction-in-force or p o s i t i o n - e l i m i n a t i o n cases. Cir. Munoz v . O c e a n s i d e R e s o r t s , 2000) reduction courts recognizing cases have a distinction and t e r m i n a t i o n not always I n c . , 223 F.3d 1340 ( 1 1 t h required cases). strict between workforce- However, federal adherence to the elements of a prima f a c i e case, i n d i c a t i n g t h a t , although the t y p i c a l method o f d e m o n s t r a t i n g a p r i m a f a c i e c a s e i n v o l v e s a 16 2080491 showing that the employer y o u n g e r one, the of proof a prima hinges of on c o u r t s must be "whether i n the 701 Thus, although erred in strictly facie F.2d employment Sys., case a t 1387; we to and plaintiff a basis has f o r an Lambert's inference Pace Lambert the original factor and, i n the thus, v. failure must now to prove consider a b a s i s f o r an was F.2d 1294. court claim whether inference in fact, Ry. at trial that a prima and by he was from e s t a b l i s h i n g employment d e c i s i o n , " P a c e , 701 whether Lambert d i d , sufficient Southern the age-discrimination a younger p e r s o n p r e v e n t e d him evidence "provide[s] a determination elements of a r e p l a c e d by we with t h a t age that that f a c i e case, the presented concluding a prima Lambert's worker a l s o S t a n f i e l d , 867 with applying older that decision." see agree an "open t o a l t e r n a t i v e methods f a c i e case" the evidence to provide factor replaced Lambert's t h a t age F.2d was a at 1387, establish a prima f a c i e c a s e o f age d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . L i b e r t y N a t ' l L i f e I n s . Co. v. U n i v e r s i t y o f A l a b a m a H e a l t h So. 2d 1013, 1020 ( A l a . 2003) court's judgment on any Servs. Found., P.C., ( n o t i n g t h a t we valid circumstances). 17 legal may 881 affirm a ground in trial most 2080491 B e c a u s e t h e a l t e r n a t i v e t e s t a l l o w s an a g e - d i s c r i m i n a t i o n plaintiff the opportunity presenting conclude will "evidence by w h i c h a f a c t f i n d e r might that reaching t o e s t a b l i s h a prima f a c i e case by the employer intended to reasonably discriminate in t h e d e c i s i o n a t i s s u e , " B a r n e s , 814 F.2d a t 609, we consider parties agree Lambert's that evidence Lambert under that has e s t a b l i s h e d test. Both the f i r s t and s e c o n d e l e m e n t s o f t h e a l t e r n a t i v e t e s t , b e c a u s e L a m b e r t was qualified for his position a n d he was a member of the p r o t e c t e d g r o u p t h a t s u f f e r e d an a d v e r s e employment d e c i s i o n . See id. We t u r n o u r f o c u s , alternative which a intended test: whether reasonable that Id. Lambert we must presented f a c t - f i n d e r could to discriminate against when M i k e d i s c h a r g e d that, then, t o the t h i r d element of the conclude whether that from Mazer h i m on t h e b a s i s o f h i s age h i m f r o m h i s employment. consider evidence See i d . Lambert p r e s e n t e d supports a reasonable inference To do "evidence o f age d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . " a t 610. In order discrimination t o make plaintiff the determination has p r e s e n t e d s a t i s f y h i s o r h e r burden of p r e s e n t i n g 18 whether enough an a g e - evidence a prima f a c i e to case, 2080491 courts have considered discrimination, circumstantial including comments made d e c i s i o n makers t h a t i n d i c a t e an a g e - r e l a t e d v. Southland 1 9 9 4 ) ; see 1247, Int'l Trucks, 25 F.3d evidence (M.D. Ala. 2008) or bias. 1545, (considering employers by See 1549 a l s o H u n t e r v. M o b i s , A l a b a m a , LLC, 1257 of (11th 559 case). was whether "[A] the plaintiff Cir. F. Supp. 2d comments i n d i c a t i n g a pregnancy-related bias i n a pregnancy-discrimination evaluate Corbin established a case to prima facie comment [by an e m p l o y e r o r d e c i s i o n m a k e r ] , w h i c h n a r r o w l y t a i l o r e d to a p a r t i c u l a r event, might constitute some e v i d e n c e o f d i s c r i m i n a t i o n f o r a c a s e b a s e d on a s e p a r a t e e v e n t ; t h e s t a t e m e n t , h o w e v e r , must t h e n be s e e n n o t as d i r e c t e v i d e n c e of d i s c r i m i n a t i o n , but discrimination"; circumstantial evidence, "suggests motive." but evidence, does n o t p r o v e B u r r e l l v. B o a r d o f T r s . 125 F.3d the courts 1390, 1393 n.7 have a l s o comments" u n r e l a t e d not as c i r c u m s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e sufficient to d i s c r i m i n a t i o n case. and held 1393 that unlike a direct discriminatory of Georgia M i l i t a r y Coll., (11th C i r . 1997). However, "stray remarks" or "isolated t o the employee or d i s c h a r g e a t i s s u e create a jury question in an Cone v. Longmont U n i t e d Hosp. A s s ' n , 19 of are age14 2080491 F.3d 526, 531 (10th C i r . 1994); see a l s o Montgomery, 916 F. Supp 1193, 1204-05 B r o o k v. C i t y o f (M.D. A l a . 1 9 9 6 ) . The a g e - d i s c r i m i n a t i o n p l a i n t i f f must " d e m o n s t r a t e [ t h a t ] a n e x u s exits the between t h [ e ] a l l e g e d l y d i s c r i m i n a t o r y s t a t e m e n t s and [employer's] d e c i s i o n t o terminate [ h i m o r ] h e r . " Cone, 14 F.3d a t 5 3 1 ; B r o o k , 916 F. Supp a t 1204-05. Lambert testified i n d i c a t i n g an age b i a s . that Mike had made statements M i k e a d m i t t e d t h a t he h a d made some, but n o t a l l , o f t h e s t a t e m e n t s Lambert a t t r i b u t e d t o him. For p u r p o s e s o f r e v i e w o f t h e summary j u d g m e n t , we must consider the s e e DPF facts Architects, i n the l i g h t most favorable t o Lambert, 792 So. 2d a t 372, a n d we t h e r e f o r e consider a l l t h e a l l e g e d s t a t e m e n t s as i f M i k e h a d i n d e e d made them. Cone, 14 F.3d a t 5 3 1 . Lambert t e s t i f i e d t h a t Mike had s a i d o f A r t L e v i n e , who was a b o u t 65 y e a r s o f age, t h a t he d e s i r e d someone y o u n g e r a n d more e n e r g e t i c also commented i n h i sposition. that A r t "wasn't A c c o r d i n g t o Lambert, very active." Mike Regarding a n o t h e r e m p l o y e e , Sam L o r i n o , whose age does n o t a p p e a r i n t h e r e c o r d b u t who was, b y a g r e e m e n t o f t h e p a r t i e s , o v e r t h e age o f 40, L a m b e r t t e s t i f i e d t h a t M i k e h a d s t a t e d t h a t L o r i n o was 20 2080491 "past h i s p r i m e " and a l s o mentioned that h e , t o o , was n o t "active." Those s t a t e m e n t s , a l t h o u g h c a p a b l e o f b e i n g p e r c e i v e d as derogatory and i n a p p r o p r i a t e , d i r e c t e d toward Lambert. employees directly they i n other positions t o be " s t r a y n o t made regarding or They were comments made a b o u t o t h e r b e a r on t h e d e c i s i o n appear were than Lambert's to discharge and d i d n o t Lambert. Thus, remarks," which a r e inadequate t o present s u f f i c i e n t evidence of a discriminatory intent. Cone, 14 F.3d a t 5 3 1 ; B r o o k , 916 F. Supp a t 1204-05. L a m b e r t a l s o r e l i e s on what he t e r m s M i k e ' s testimony" regarding the reason "conflicting f o r Lambert's discharge. L a m b e r t r e l i e s on a s t a t e m e n t M i k e made i n a 2008 d e p o s i t i o n i n a d e f a m a t i o n a c t i o n b r o u g h t by a n o t h e r d i s c h a r g e d employee. I n t h e d e p o s i t i o n , M i k e was a s k e d why L a m b e r t was d i s c h a r g e d , t o w h i c h he r e s p o n d e d " r e o r g a n i z a t i o n . " When a s k e d i f t h e r e were a n y o t h e r r e a s o n s f o r d i s c h a r g i n g L a m b e r t , M i k e "no." Mike had t e s t i f i e d case, had i n d i c a t e d had i n d i c a t e d discharge i n h i s deposition i n h i swritten discovery i n the present r e s p o n s e s , and i n M a z e r ' s EEOC p o s i t i o n p a p e r t h a t was m o t i v a t e d by d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n 21 replied with Lambert's Lambert's 2080491 performance Mazer of argues both that his purchasing the two and reasons advertising duties. given were not truly conflicting. Our supreme court considered a similar argument R o b i n s o n , i n w h i c h t h e e m p l o y e r had o r i g i n a l l y g i v e n restructuring as Robinson, 964 indicated that i t s reason So. 2d at i t had for the employee's 1229-30. also Later, become decision to discharge him. Id. at 1230. in fact, employer employer with the In affirming supreme the court r e a s o n s g i v e n by t h e e m p l o y e r were n o t , " c o n f l i c t i n g " and d i d n o t amount t o e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e had disavowed the i n d i c a t e d t h a t the o r i g i n a l Notably, had the figured into i t s summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f t h e e m p l o y e r , o u r e x p l a i n e d t h a t t h e two corporate discharge. dissatisfied e m p l o y e e ' s work and t h a t h i s p e r f o r m a n c e had in Mike maintained discharged dissatisfied with Lambert his original r e a s o n was reason a pretext. throughout t h i s after performance, which otherwise Id. action that becoming r e s u l t o f L a m b e r t ' s o u t s i d e i n t e r e s t s and t h e o f f i c e p u r s u i n g them. or Mike he increasingly felt was a h i s t i m e away f r o m A f t e r Lambert's d i s c h a r g e , Mike d i d r e s t r u c t u r e some o f t h e u p p e r - l e v e l management o f t h e company 22 2080491 by reassigning c e r t a i n of Lambert's d u t i e s t o Smythia, the e x i s t i n g e x e c u t i v e v i c e p r e s i d e n t , and t o h i m s e l f ; t h e b u l k o f Lambert's purchasing duties were assigned to a lower-level e m p l o y e e , who p e r f o r m e d t h o s e d u t i e s i n a d d i t i o n t o h i s f o r m e r duties. Mike's comment in an unrelated case that discharged Lambert because o f r e s t r u c t u r i n g appears he nothing more t h a n a s h o r t h a n d way t o e x p l a i n t h e c h a n g e s i n t h e M a z e r management team a n d does n o t a p p e a r t o i n d i c a t e t h a t M i k e was disavowing the basis f o r the decision to discharge L a m b e r t ' s f i n a l a r g u m e n t t h a t he h a s p r o d u c e d Lambert. sufficient c i r c u m s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t h a t h i s age was a m o t i v a t i n g for his discharge, age factor i n order t o e s t a b l i s h a prima f a c i e case of d i s c r i m i n a t i o n , i s t h a t Mazer r e d i s t r i b u t e d h i s d u t i e s t o a younger employee. duties A l t h o u g h we a g r e e t h a t of a discharged evidence reassigning the employee t o a younger employee age d i s c r i m i n a t i o n i n some cases, Wallis might v. J.R. S i m p l o t Co., 26 F.3d 885, 891 ( 9 t h C i r . 1994) ( h o l d i n g t h a t an age-discrimination when he "claimed plaintiff that established twelve of the t h i r t e e n p e r f o r m e d were r e t a i n e d a t t h e c o r p o r a t e h i s d u t i e s were a s s i g n e d a prima level, facie functions case he and t h a t a l l t o p e r s o n s younger and l e s s q u a l i f i e d 23 2080491 t h a n he" not (emphasis evidence such assumed L a m b e r t ' s department, both added)), the f a c t s of the p r e s e n t case discrimination. purchasing duties i s younger assumed some o f than Although Smythia duties, are and not. Mike, In evidence l e v e l employees: Many employees are o l d e r than Lambert. indicates that M a z e r has a number o f o l d e r who fact, S m y t h i a , a t age 66, i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y o l d e r t h a n L a m b e r t . of Mazer's u p p e r - l e v e l who f o r the kitchen-and-bath Lambert, Lambert's Cobbin, do The upper- Ward, t h e company t r e a s u r e r and c o n t r o l l e r i s 64; M i r i a m D e a l , who p e r f o r m s c e r t a i n a d v e r t i s i n g d u t i e s u n d e r Smythia's d i r e c t i o n , i s i n her 60s; and s e r v e s as a p u r c h a s i n g a s s i s t a n t , i s 67. evidence one amounts t o e v i d e n c e younger person and two Peggy M a r t i n , At best, i n d i c a t i n g that older persons to Mazer take who Lambert's selected over the t a s k s t h a t M i k e d e t e r m i n e d L a m b e r t c o u l d no l o n g e r a d e q u a t e l y perform. The third Lambert's of mere f a c t t h a t one duties were of the persons t o whom r e a s s i g n e d i s younger L a m b e r t does n o t amount t o s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e onethan demonstrating t h a t M a z e r ' s d e c i s i o n t o d i s c h a r g e L a m b e r t f r o m h i s employment was m o t i v a t e d by h i s age. 24 2080491 We conclude, therefore, that Lambert has p r i m a f a c i e c a s e o f age d i s c r i m i n a t i o n u n d e r based on Circuit the alternative of Court test in Appeals expressed Barnes. not t h e AADEA, by That reasonably conclude that the at 609. The judgment, even elements trial is, Lambert's employer court properly i f i t e r r e d by s t r i c t l y factfinder intended to Barnes, 814 entered a summary original Liberty Nat'l Life of a prima f a c i e case. a p p l y i n g the I n s . Co. v. U n i v e r s i t y o f A l a b a m a H e a l t h S e r v s . Found., P.C., 2d a t even Eleventh d i s c r i m i n a t e i n r e a c h i n g the d e c i s i o n at i s s u e . " F.2d a the e v i d e n c e i s not s u f f i c i e n t evidence from "which a might proven 881 So. 1020. Pretext However, e v e n i f L a m b e r t had established c a s e o f age d i s c r i m i n a t i o n , we w o u l d still a prima conclude that t r i a l c o u r t ' s summary j u d g m e n t was p r o p e r l y e n t e r e d . above, once establishes shifts a a plaintiff prima facie t o the employer, nondiscriminatory Robinson, who reason in an case, burden must t h e n p r o f f e r for the case of p r o d u c t i o n a legitimate, employee's discharge. 964 So. 2d a t 1228-29; see a l s o S t a n f i e l d , 25 the As n o t e d age-discrimination the facie 867 F.2d 2080491 a t 1294. Mike's M a z e r p r o f f e r e d as i t s b a s i s f o r L a m b e r t ' s dissatisfaction purchasing to decision Lambert's and a d v e r t i s i n g d u t i e s . present regarding with substantial whether to discharge performance in his L a m b e r t was t h e n r e q u i r e d evidence age was, discharge creating i n fact, him or that a fact the basis question f o r Mazer's the reason p r o f f e r e d by M a z e r -- d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h L a m b e r t ' s p e r f o r m a n c e -- was a mere p r e t e x t f o r age d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . R o b i n s o n , 964 So. 2d a t 1229; s e e a l s o S t a n f i e l d , 867 F.2d a t 1294. Much o f t h e c i r c u m s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e d i s c u s s e d above i n the d i s c u s s i o n o f the prima f a c i e case i s a l s o r e l e v a n t t o the consideration whether genuine issue of material Mazer's stated Because evidence we -- Lambert fact regarding reason f o r h i s discharge have concluded the a l l e g e d that reasons f o r Lambert's portion of Lambert's d u t i e s intent, discharge, we was a mere Mike 26 that pretext. i n d i c a t i n g ageconflicting and t h e r e a s s i g n m e n t o f a t o a younger employee will a circumstantial t h a t Mike had given from which a reasonable discriminatory by of c r e a t i n g h i s assertion Lambert's comments r e l a t e d b i a s , the contention evidence met h i s b u r d e n -- i s n o t f a c t - f i n d e r could not discuss that infer a evidence 2080491 further. in In a d d i t i o n t o the c i r c u m s t a n t i a l evidence the previous documentary section, evidence performance-based regarding argues, to Lambert argues support Mazer's discharge the v a l i d i t y federal creates a of the proffered courts have held that discussed the lack assertion question that of of reason. an employee can support an a fact As L a m b e r t the lack documentation t o support performance or d i s c i p l i n a r y with of inference of issues that the performance- or d i s c i p l i n e - b a s e d reason i s a p r e t e x t . Lloyd v. G e o r g i a G u l f C o r p . , 961 F.2d 1190, 1194-95 ( 5 t h C i r . 1 9 9 2 ) ; see 1233, also Everett v. L a k e M a r t i n A r e a U n i t e d Way, 4 6 F.Supp.2d 1237 (M.D. A l a . 1999) ( a p p l y i n g same l e g a l p r i n c i p l e t o a c a s e i n v o l v i n g d i s c r i m i n a t i o n on t h e b a s i s o f one's f o r b a n k r u p t c y p r o t e c t i o n u n d e r 11 U.S.C. § 525(b)). However, t h e E l e v e n t h h e l d t h a t , when t h e r e of documentation disciplinary Circuit Court o f Appeals has a l s o i s no " f o r m a l review process," the lack of 1238, complaints, warnings i n a personnel e v i d e n c e t o show p r e t e x t . F.3d 1245 filing negative file reviews, or i s not s u f f i c i e n t W a s c u r a v. C i t y o f S o u t h M i a m i , 257 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 2001) (involving d i s c r i m i n a t i o n u n d e r 42 U.S.C. § 1 2 1 1 2 ( b ) ( 4 ) , 27 a a part case of of the 2080491 Americans With present case Disabilities indicates president-level without testified addition, that employees fail, each that Act). at person Mike review Mazer with never Lambert h i m s e l f the A l l the evidence process for vice- and oral; knowledge testified the informal was issued in of written the process reviews. t h a t M i k e had In counseled him on m i s s i n g work and had e x p r e s s e d d i s p l e a s u r e o v e r c e r t a i n of h i s purchasing he knew M i k e was cabinets. The Lambert practices. Lambert s p e c i f i c a l l y s t a t e d t h a t unhappy a b o u t t h e s i t u a t i o n w i t h t h e kitchen f a c t t h a t Mike a l s o i n d i c a t e d s a t i s f a c t i o n during is not s u f f i c i e n t to r a i s e a q u e s t i o n of f a c t r e g a r d i n g p r e t e x t . See Robinson, 964 the So. 2d comments among t h e did not suffice period to present conclude, 1231-32 negative was discharge (indicating that the positive evaluations employer's proffered pretextual). therefore, that to discharge having been c o u n s e l e d discrimination. a b o u t and 28 having a failed r e g a r d i n g whether Mazer's s t a t e d b a s i s f o r Lambert's f o r age creating also question a mere p r e t e x t evidence Lambert fact was substantial his ones i n p e r f o r m a n c e e s t a b l i s h that reason f o r discharge We at before with Lambert b e e n aware o f admitted Mike's 2080491 d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with duties i n the year t h e p e r f o r m a n c e o f a t l e a s t some o f h i s before h i s discharge. A review of the e v i d e n c e s u b m i t t e d b y b o t h p a r t i e s c o n v i n c e s us t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n t o e n t e r a summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f M a z e r on the pretext i s s u e was c o r r e c t . Conclusion In c o n c l u s i o n , we have d e t e r m i n e d t h a t L a m b e r t f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h a p r i m a f a c i e c a s e o f age d i s c r i m i n a t i o n u n d e r t h e alternative test s e t o u t by t h e E l e v e n t h Appeals i n Barnes. Circuit L a m b e r t ' s e v i d e n c e was n o t s u f f i c i e n t t o l e a d a r e a s o n a b l e f a c t - f i n d e r t o c o n c l u d e t h a t Mazer to d i s c r i m i n a t e against Mike decided Lambert had Court of intended L a m b e r t on t h e b a s i s o f h i s age when to discharge established Lambert. In addition, even i f a facie of prima case age d i s c r i m i n a t i o n , we c o n c l u d e t h a t L a m b e r t was u n a b l e t o c r e a t e a genuine proffered issue reason of material fact f o r the discharge regarding whether Mazer's -- d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n Lambert's performance of h i s purchasing and a d v e r t i s i n g d u t i e s -- was a mere p r e t e x t f o r age d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . Accordingly, a f f i r m t h e summary j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d o f Mazer. 29 with i n favor we 2080491 AFFIRMED. Thompson, Bryan and P . J . , and P i t t m a n , J . , c o n c u r . Moore, J J . , concur writings. 30 i n the result, without

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.