Johnson v. Securitas Security Services, No. 12-2129 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff, aged 76, filed suit under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. 621 et seq, and state law, contending that Securitas fired him because of his age. Plaintiff cited evidence that prior to his termination, Securitas supervisors showed age animus through negative comments regarding plaintiff's age. Plaintiff adduced enough evidence to raise genuine doubt as to the legitimacy of Securitas's motive, even if that evidence did not directly contradict or disprove Securitas's articulated reasons for its actions. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Securitas, concluding that there were genuine issues of material fact concerning pretext.
Court Description: Civil case - Employment Discrimination. The district court erred in granting the employer's motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's age discrimination claim as plaintiff made out a prima facie case of age discrimination and adduced enough admissible evidence to raise genuine doubts as to whether the grounds the employer stated for termination were pretexts for age discrimination. Judge Bye, dissenting on the issue of whether plaintiff submitted sufficient evidence to show the stated grounds were pretexts for age discrimination.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on October 7, 2014.
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.