Noreen v. PharMerica Corp., No. 15-2917 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff filed suit against his former employer, alleging that the company terminated his position and then refused to rehire him because of his age, in violation of federal and Minnesota law. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the employer where plaintiff has not presented a submissible case of age discrimination under Minnesota law. It follows that plaintiff’s claim under the more demanding federal standard fails as well. In this case, plaintiff is understandably frustrated that the employer deviated from written guidelines under which he likely would have been retained as a pharmacist. But plaintiff cannot prevail in this lawsuit by showing sloppy management or arbitrary decisionmaking. The company’s regular practice of ranking all pharmacists together and terminating those with the lowest score is not sufficient evidence of age discrimination to defeat summary judgment. The balance of the evidence does not establish a submissible case. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Colloton, Author, with Riley, Chief Judge, and Kelly, Circuit Judge] Civil case - Employment discrimination. Without any evidence of any inconsistent practice or manipulation directed at plaintiff, there is insufficient evidence to infer age discrimination from the defendant's repeated failure to follow its written policy guidelines concerning evaluating employees for a reduction in force; plaintiff's statistical evidence did not support an inference that age discrimination was a motivating factor in his termination as part of a reduction in force; defendant's summary judgment is affirmed.
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.