The employee, age 48, worked as a gasoline coordinator for the employer for approximately five years, beginning in 2014. In 2015, a supervisor briefly placed the employee on a performance improvement plan (PIP) for his apparent “aggressive and intimidating” presence in the workplace. The employee subsequently received three awards for his work despite receiving below-standard assessments at his annual reviews. In 2018, the employer hired a new supervisor (the “manager”) who expressed to the employee his intention to bring more “young people” into the department. After conducting performance evaluations, the manager changed the employee’s title to heavy oil coordinator and had him assist his replacement, who was 33 years old. The employee did not suffer a salary, bonus, benefit, or schedule reduction; however, he complained of diminished standing and opportunity. Continued complaints about the employee’s performance and behavior led the manager to place him on a PIP again. However, upon learning of his placement on PIP in a meeting, the employee suffered a cardiac event. The manager held a meeting later or the employee to sign the PIP agreement. During that meeting, however, the employee acted unprofessionally and spoke loudly and demeaningly. The employer terminated the employee for his poor performance and conduct and “refusal to improve his performance.” After pursuing administrative remedies, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission granted the employee a right to sue. Accordingly, he filed suit later that month on the grounds of age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and based on disability in reference to his heart condition under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The district court dismissed the employee’s suit, and the employee appealed.
In Dabbasi v. Motiva Enters., L.L.C., 107 F.4th 500 (5th Cir. 2024), the Fifth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court first examined the issue of age discrimination by using the McDonell Douglas Framework. The McDonell Douglas Framework requires that a plaintiff show prima facie evidence that “(1) he was discharged; (2) he was qualified for the position; (3) he was within the protected class at the time of discharge; and (4) he was either i) replaced by someone outside the protected class, ii) replaced by someone younger, or iii) otherwise discharged because of his age.” Jackson v. Cal-W. Packaging Corp., 602 F.3d 374, 378 (5th Cir. 2010). The defendant must then rebut the plaintiff’s discrimination claims by providing non-discriminatory reasons for terminating the plaintiff’s employment. Berquist v. Wash. Mut. Bank, 500 F.3d 344, 349 (5th Cir. 2007). The court reversed the district court’s decision to separate the employee’s claims of demotion and termination because the McDonell Douglas Framework looks at the discrimination as a whole, not at each instance. Furthermore, the court found a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the employee’s termination had been motivated by his age. Accordingly, the court reasoned that the employee had established a prima facie case. The court also reasoned that the evidence presented demonstrated the employer’s preference for younger employees, the role change had diminished the employee’s position, and a younger employee had replaced him. Thus, the burden shifted to the employer to provide a “legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for [the employee’s] termination.” The court considered the employer’s explanations for termination but found that the employee’s evidence “is sufficient to allow a finding that age discrimination was the cause of his termination.” Therefore, there was a genuine dispute of material fact that a jury must determine. Conversely, the circuit court concluded that the employee’s disability discrimination claim failed because he had not possessed the disability at the time of the alleged adverse employment action. The court remanded the case back for further proceedings on the issue of age discrimination.
By Conor Doris: [email protected]
Edited By Taylor O’Brien: [email protected]
Edited By Ashley Boyce: [email protected]
Edited By Hayden Mariott: [email protected]