Franklin RAY, Appellant, v. MacMILLAN BLOEDEL CONTAINERS, INC., Appellee

Eighth Circuit

Franklin RAY, Appellant, v. MacMILLAN BLOEDEL CONTAINERS, INC., Appellee

738 F.2d 965, 35 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 628, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 20505, 34 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 34,509

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedJuly 16, 1984

Docket84-1415

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 738 F.2d 965 (Franklin RAY, Appellant, v. MacMILLAN BLOEDEL CONTAINERS, INC., Appellee) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Franklin RAY, Appellant, v. MacMILLAN BLOEDEL CONTAINERS, INC., Appellee, 738 F.2d 965, 35 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 628, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 20505, 34 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 34,509 (8th Cir. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Franklin Ray, a first line supervisor at MacMillan Bloedel, Inc. (MacMillan) was terminated on November 30, 1981. He commenced an action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas alleging that he had been terminated because of his age, in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. The case was tried to the court. It found that Ray had failed to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination, and that even if such a case had been established, MacMillan had articulated a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for Ray’s termination and that Ray had *966 failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that appellee’s reason was pretextual. Ray then appealed to this Court. We affirm.

Ray proved that he was in the protected age group, that he was qualified for the job that he held, and that he was terminated. He failed to prove that the job was held open until it was filled by a younger person. He also failed to prove a company practice of terminating protected supervisory employees rather than younger supervisory employees of equal or lesser abilities. He thus failed to establish a prima facie case. Dace v. ACF Industries, Inc., 722 F.2d 374, 377-378 & n. 7 (8th Cir.1983); Cova v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of St. Louis, 574 F.2d 958, 959-960 (8th Cir.1978).

The trial court found that Ray had been terminated as a part of “a legitimate reduction in force due to economic conditions” and that “his performance vis-a-vis other supervisors caused him to be terminated rather than the remaining supervisors regardless of their ages.” This finding was not clearly erroneous.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Franklin Ray, a first line supervisor at MacMillan Bloedel, Inc. (MacMillan) was terminated on November 30, 1981. He commenced an action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas alleging that he had been terminated because of his age, in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. The case was tried to the court. It found that Ray had failed to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination, and that even if such a case had been established, MacMillan had articulated a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for Ray’s termination and that Ray had *966 failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that appellee’s reason was pretextual. Ray then appealed to this Court. We affirm.

Ray proved that he was in the protected age group, that he was qualified for the job that he held, and that he was terminated. He failed to prove that the job was held open until it was filled by a younger person. He also failed to prove a company practice of terminating protected supervisory employees rather than younger supervisory employees of equal or lesser abilities. He thus failed to establish a prima facie case. Dace v. ACF Industries, Inc., 722 F.2d 374, 377-378 & n. 7 (8th Cir.1983); Cova v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of St. Louis, 574 F.2d 958, 959-960 (8th Cir.1978).

The trial court found that Ray had been terminated as a part of “a legitimate reduction in force due to economic conditions” and that “his performance vis-a-vis other supervisors caused him to be terminated rather than the remaining supervisors regardless of their ages.” This finding was not clearly erroneous.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

738 F.2d 965, 35 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 628, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 20505, 34 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 34,509, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/franklin-ray-appellant-v-macmillan-bloedel-containers-inc-appellee-ca8-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack