|
Gantt v. Wilson Sporting Goods Co.
(6th Cir. (Tenn.) May 12, 1998)
The Plaintiff, Gantt, was an at-will employee of Wilson Sporting
Goods when she suffered an injury at work which required surgery. She told her
supervisor that she would be off work for six months to a year. During her absence,
she received disability benefits through worker’s compensation. The Defendant’s
policy was that after one year a disabled employee not returning to work would
be fired. After Gantt failed to obtain a doctor’s release to return to work
within one year, the Defendant fired her., She was 58 at the time of her termination.
Two weeks after her termination, Gantt obtained her release, with certain physical
restrictions. The Plaintiff did not appeal her termination or seek reemployment.
Rather, she filed suit in district court alleging, among other things, that the
Defendant’s leave of absence policy violated the ADEA because it had a disparate
impact on older employees. The Plaintiff appealed from the district court’s
entry of summary judgment in favor of the Defendant.
The Sixth Circuit noted that the Plaintiff’s complaint
alleged that the Defendant’s leave of absence policy violated the ADEA because
older employees are more likely to require a leave of absence greater than one
year. The Court of Appeals stated that, in light of the Supreme Court’s decision
in Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggens, 507 U.S. 604 (1993), there is now considerable
doubt as to whether a claim of age discrimination may exist under a disparate-impact
theory. Furthermore, the Court of Appeals stated that, even if a disparate-impact
claim was allowed, the Plaintiff would have to support her claim by offering statistical
evidence of a kind and degree sufficient to show that the practice in question
had caused the termination of employees due to their membership in a protected
group. The court held that, given her failure to present any evidence to support
her adverse impact theory, judgment was properly granted in favor of the Defendant
on this claim.
The Plaintiff also asserted a theory of age discrimination
based on disparate treatment. Gantt stated that summary judgment was improper
because she was 58 at the time of her termination, and the Company had no other
reason to dismiss her other than the leave of absence she took. The Court rejected
this claim, holding that a claim of disparate treatment under the ADEA requires
proof of a discriminatory motive. The court held the Plaintiff had demonstrated
no direct evidence that would tend to show that the drafting or execution of the
leave policy was actually motivated by an intent to discriminate against older
employees. Neither did the Plaintiff offer the evidence needed to make out a prima
facie circumstantial case of discrimination in that she did not show that a substantially
younger person replaced her or was treated more favorably than her.
Finally, Gantt argued that the reason that she was fired
was a pretext for age discrimination. Because she had not established a prima
facie case of age discrimination, the Court of Appeals found that, under the McDonnell
Douglas test, there was no need to address the question of pretext. Having
rejected all three of the Plaintiff’s theories of age discrimination, the
Sixth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court.
- Back to Sixth Circuit Court Cases
-
|
