|
Bush v. Dictaphone Corp.,
161 F.3d 363 (6th Cir. (Ohio) Nov. 23,1998)
Bush, the Plaintiff, was employed by the Defendant for eighteen
years. Although he obtained the position of Regional Vice-President, he was demoted
because he had difficulty dealing with a female supervisor. When the female supervisor
was first placed over him, he began to behave in a manner which led his co-workers
to believe that he was capable of workplace violence. After two psychiatric evaluations,
it was determined that he could not function normally in the workplace, and he
was therefore terminated.
Bush sued, alleging that the Defendant used the psychiatrist’s
report as a pretext to fire him because of his age. In support of this contention,
he pointed out that he was replaced by a younger woman after he was demoted and
by a younger man after he was fired. The district court granted Dictaphone’s
motion for summary judgment. The Plaintiff then appealed.
The Sixth Circuit began its analysis of the case by noting
that ADEA claims will be examned within the framework of the McDonnell Douglas
test. The court held that Bush met the first two prongs of that test, in that
he was a member of the protected class and that he was subjected to an adverse
employment action. The court assumed, for purposes of simplicity, that Bush met
the third prong of being qualified for the job, although the Court made clear
that frightening other employees at work was grounds for an argument that Bush
was not qualified for the job. The Court, however, noting that Bush’s replacement
was only 32 years old, held that Bush met the fourth prong of the McDonnell
Douglas test, that he was replaced by someone substantially younger. The Sixth
Circuit held that Bush thus had made a prima facie case of age discrimination.
That being the case, under the McDonnell Douglas
test the burden then shifted to the Defendant to show a legitimate, non-discriminatory
reason for the discharge. The Sixth Circuit held that Dictaphone met this burden
by relying on the professional judgments of a psychiatrist and a psychologist,
both of whom specifically advised that Bush was not stable. Furthermore, the Defendant
gave Bush every opportunity to challenge the findings of these experts by offering
to pay for an evaluation by a psychiatrist or psychologist of his own choosing.
Bush had opted not to avail himself of that opportunity.
Under McDonnell Douglas, once the defendant has
demonstrated a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the termination, the
burden will then shift back to the plaintiff to show that the defendant’s
reasons were pretexts. After the termination, Bush retained another psychiatrist,
who said that Bush had been misdiagnosed. The court, however, said this new evaluation
was irrelevant to the termination decision since Bush did not allege that Dictaphone
had access to this information when it terminated him. Furthermore, although Bush
alleged that several Dictaphone officials had made remarks which demonstrated
an age-based animus, he was unable to show that any of those comments were made
by anyone connected with the decision to terminate him. The court made clear that
statements by nondecisionmakers, or statements by decisionmakers unrelated to
the decisional process itself, cannot suffice to satisfy the plaintiff’s
burden of proving that the proffered reasons for the termination were a pretext
for discrimination.
Finally, Bush tried to avail himself of an exception to
the burden-shifting analysis. Bush argued that his evidence was direct evidence
of discrimination, and, therefore, the McDonnell Douglas test, which only
governs the presentation of indirect evidence, was inapplicable. The court responded
that in the Sixth Circuit any evidence which would require the jury to infer a
fact is not direct evidence. The court went on to say that, irrespective of which
method is used to establish discriminatory intent, a plaintiff must show that
she was discharged on account of age. The court said that Bush had failed to do
this.
Thus, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district
court.
- Back to Sixth Circuit Court Cases
-
|
