Aulick v. Skybridge Americas, Inc., No. 16-2648 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff filed suit against his former employer, Skybridge, alleging claims under federal and state law based on Skybridge's denial of a promotion and ultimate termination of plaintiff based on his age. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for Skybridge, holding that the CEO's statement that the company was looking for a "New Face" was facially and contextually neutral when made to plaintiff. Under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting analysis, Skybridge articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for selecting another person over plaintiff for the CTO position and for ultimately terminating plaintiff. In this case, plaintiff's position as IT director of fulfillment became superfluous. The court rejected plaintiff's two remaining claims of intentional misrepresentation and negligent misrepresentation.
Court Description: Shepherd, Author, with Wollman and Melloy, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Employment discrimination. Employer's comment that a "New Face" was needed in the position plaintiff had applied for was facially and contextually neutral and was not direct evidence of age discrimination; assuming plaintiff has made a prima facie case of age discrimination under the McDonnell Douglas analysis, the employer articulated legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its hiring decision, and plaintiff failed to show these reasons were a pretext for discrimination; plaintiff failed to show that defendant made an actionable negligent misrepresentation concerning his hiring for the position; while his supervisors encouraged him to apply and told him he had a good chance at getting the position, they never told him to stop his job search and never promised him the position; even if the employer made a false misrepresentation, plaintiff could not justifiably rely on it as he was an at-will employee and never received a job offer from any other employer.
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.