UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 2/21/96TENTH CIRCUIT
WILLIAM E. LEWIS, ) ) Plaintiff-Appellant, ) ) v. ) No. 95-1161 ) (D.C. No. 93-S-2073) McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORPORATION, ) (Dist. Colo.) a Maryland corporation, ) ) Defendants-Appellees. ) )
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
Before TACHA, HOLLOWAY, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff, William E. Lewis, appeals the district court's order granting summary
judgment in favor of his former employer, McDonnell Douglas Corporation, on his claim
under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. We affirm.
In early 1992, Lewis was employed as a department manager for Instructional
Technology at McDonnell Douglas Corporation’s (MDC) McDonnell Douglas Training
Systems (MDTS) facility in Aurora, Colorado. Lewis was 51 years old, was approaching
his 25th year with MDC, and would have been fully vested under MDC’s retirement
benefit system in approximately 4 years.
In April 1992, MDC announced the closing of the Aurora facility effective
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. November 1992, and the transfer of most of the Aurora operations to MDC’s world
headquarters in St. Louis. As a result of the closure, all 189 positions at Aurora were
scheduled to be eliminated. Because much of the work performed in Aurora was to be
transferred to other facilities, MDC created several new positions at the locations. MDC
managers Calvin Cooper, Ken Bloms, Bill James, and Joe Reeves were solely responsible
for identifying new positions that needed to be created. As these new positions were
identified and created, notice was posted on a bulletin board in Aurora and interested
Aurora employees were allowed to apply for the positions.
Lewis alleges his primary concern was staying with MDC so that he could obtain
full retirement benefits and eligibility. Thus, Lewis alleges, “[m]oney was no sticking
point and a significant pay cut was not an issue.” Appellant’s br. at 2. Although he
regularly checked the Aurora bulletin board, he did not apply for any of the posted
positions. However, Lewis did contact Mark Darrah, manager of Department 354,
MDC’s St. Louis Design Engineering Department, about possible employment.
Specifically, Lewis telephoned Darrah sometime in April 1992, and thereafter faxed him
a resume and cover letter on May 12, 1992. The cover letter stated:
Enclosed find my resume and one from Bill Ton. Just a few words about Bill. He has worked for me during most of both of his stints with MDC. He is a very bright and innovative person with a great deal of technical expertise. In short, he’s a great asset. Bill is a Senior Technical Specialist, grade 63. As for myself, I would prefer St. Louis (or other parts of the country) work that commences late this fall or early this winter -- we have some construction underway at our residence and I would like to finish my responsibilities to Aurora’s site manager. I’m currently a grade 78 (a MCAIR reorg. holding grade), Level F manager. I’d prefer, if possible, a Principal Technical Specialist slot. So you can get an idea of my capabilities/skills, I thought I’d pass on the names of some MCAIR, St. Louis folks you can talk to. These are people I’ve worked with, or for. Unfortunately, many others have recently
2 retired. Larry Lemke Denny Behm Bob Soucy Mike Tkach Dan Baerthel Larry Doyle Ed Winkler J. D. Willow
Appellant’s append. II at 500.
At the time he received Lewis’ letter and resume, Darrah was reviewing candidates
to fill 3 to 5 “entry-level” positions in Department 354's Human Performance Laboratory
(none of which were created as a result of the closing of the Aurora facility). According
to Darrah, he weighed Lewis' qualifications and background when he received his
resume, and decided Lewis “was a much higher level than an entry level position,” and
“his experience was not germane to the openings.” Appellant’s append. I at 277.
Darrah subsequently hired Katrine Helbing and Donna Murray, two female college
recruits in their mid-20's, to fill two of the positions in Department 354. With respect to
the position filled by Murray, Darrah stated that Lewis did not have “entry level
armament loading experience,” and his background and experiences “were not technically
matched to what these programs needed.” Appellant’s append. I at 283-84. With respect
to the position filled by Helbing, Darrah thought that Lewis probably could not have
performed the job because
[t]he Helbing job was specific to a very highly technical level of understanding human vision and visual interaction with controls and displays. At the time [Lewis] worked in these areas, he did not work at the technical level that today’s world demands, things like night vision optics. Flying very fast at low levels at night in bad weather requires a very high level of technical experience in optical systems.
Appellant’s append. I at 285.
Lewis' employment was terminated on November 20, 1992. He filed an age
discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and
3 subsequently filed this action in the spring of 1994. Although Lewis originally alleged
two separate and distinct episodes of age discrimination, one focusing on the denial of an
opportunity to compete for the Department 354 positions and one focusing on the closure
of the Aurora facility, he subsequently stipulated that his claim of age discrimination
related solely to his application for employment in Department 354.
MDC filed a motion for summary judgment, and the district court issued a written
order granting MDC’s motion. The court concluded: (1) Lewis “was not suitably
qualified for the two entry-level positions” in Department 354 because his grade level at
the time of application was “much higher than an entry-level position” and he “did not
express to [Darrah] that he would be willing to accept an entry level position”; (2) Lewis’
experience was not germane to the openings in Department 354 because his relevant
experience was not recent and did not fit the specific needs; and (3) Lewis did not
actually apply for the two entry-level positions in Department 354. Appellant’s append.
III at 669-70. Moreover, the court rejected Lewis' “subjective belief that MDC was trying
to save money on retirement benefits,” as well as evidence of stray remarks made by
certain MDC employees concerning his age and appearance. Id. at 670. The court
concluded that, even if Lewis could present a prima facie case of age discrimination, he
could not “meet his burden on summary judgment of discrediting MDC’s
nondiscriminatory reasons for his nonselection and presenting credible evidence to show
that age actually played a determinative role in MDC’s decisionmaking process.” Id. at
673.
We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the
same standard as the district court under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Universal Money Centers
4 v. American Tel.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 2/21/96TENTH CIRCUIT
WILLIAM E. LEWIS, ) ) Plaintiff-Appellant, ) ) v. ) No. 95-1161 ) (D.C. No. 93-S-2073) McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORPORATION, ) (Dist. Colo.) a Maryland corporation, ) ) Defendants-Appellees. ) )
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
Before TACHA, HOLLOWAY, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff, William E. Lewis, appeals the district court's order granting summary
judgment in favor of his former employer, McDonnell Douglas Corporation, on his claim
under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. We affirm.
In early 1992, Lewis was employed as a department manager for Instructional
Technology at McDonnell Douglas Corporation’s (MDC) McDonnell Douglas Training
Systems (MDTS) facility in Aurora, Colorado. Lewis was 51 years old, was approaching
his 25th year with MDC, and would have been fully vested under MDC’s retirement
benefit system in approximately 4 years.
In April 1992, MDC announced the closing of the Aurora facility effective
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. November 1992, and the transfer of most of the Aurora operations to MDC’s world
headquarters in St. Louis. As a result of the closure, all 189 positions at Aurora were
scheduled to be eliminated. Because much of the work performed in Aurora was to be
transferred to other facilities, MDC created several new positions at the locations. MDC
managers Calvin Cooper, Ken Bloms, Bill James, and Joe Reeves were solely responsible
for identifying new positions that needed to be created. As these new positions were
identified and created, notice was posted on a bulletin board in Aurora and interested
Aurora employees were allowed to apply for the positions.
Lewis alleges his primary concern was staying with MDC so that he could obtain
full retirement benefits and eligibility. Thus, Lewis alleges, “[m]oney was no sticking
point and a significant pay cut was not an issue.” Appellant’s br. at 2. Although he
regularly checked the Aurora bulletin board, he did not apply for any of the posted
positions. However, Lewis did contact Mark Darrah, manager of Department 354,
MDC’s St. Louis Design Engineering Department, about possible employment.
Specifically, Lewis telephoned Darrah sometime in April 1992, and thereafter faxed him
a resume and cover letter on May 12, 1992. The cover letter stated:
Enclosed find my resume and one from Bill Ton. Just a few words about Bill. He has worked for me during most of both of his stints with MDC. He is a very bright and innovative person with a great deal of technical expertise. In short, he’s a great asset. Bill is a Senior Technical Specialist, grade 63. As for myself, I would prefer St. Louis (or other parts of the country) work that commences late this fall or early this winter -- we have some construction underway at our residence and I would like to finish my responsibilities to Aurora’s site manager. I’m currently a grade 78 (a MCAIR reorg. holding grade), Level F manager. I’d prefer, if possible, a Principal Technical Specialist slot. So you can get an idea of my capabilities/skills, I thought I’d pass on the names of some MCAIR, St. Louis folks you can talk to. These are people I’ve worked with, or for. Unfortunately, many others have recently
2 retired. Larry Lemke Denny Behm Bob Soucy Mike Tkach Dan Baerthel Larry Doyle Ed Winkler J. D. Willow
Appellant’s append. II at 500.
At the time he received Lewis’ letter and resume, Darrah was reviewing candidates
to fill 3 to 5 “entry-level” positions in Department 354's Human Performance Laboratory
(none of which were created as a result of the closing of the Aurora facility). According
to Darrah, he weighed Lewis' qualifications and background when he received his
resume, and decided Lewis “was a much higher level than an entry level position,” and
“his experience was not germane to the openings.” Appellant’s append. I at 277.
Darrah subsequently hired Katrine Helbing and Donna Murray, two female college
recruits in their mid-20's, to fill two of the positions in Department 354. With respect to
the position filled by Murray, Darrah stated that Lewis did not have “entry level
armament loading experience,” and his background and experiences “were not technically
matched to what these programs needed.” Appellant’s append. I at 283-84. With respect
to the position filled by Helbing, Darrah thought that Lewis probably could not have
performed the job because
[t]he Helbing job was specific to a very highly technical level of understanding human vision and visual interaction with controls and displays. At the time [Lewis] worked in these areas, he did not work at the technical level that today’s world demands, things like night vision optics. Flying very fast at low levels at night in bad weather requires a very high level of technical experience in optical systems.
Appellant’s append. I at 285.
Lewis' employment was terminated on November 20, 1992. He filed an age
discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and
3 subsequently filed this action in the spring of 1994. Although Lewis originally alleged
two separate and distinct episodes of age discrimination, one focusing on the denial of an
opportunity to compete for the Department 354 positions and one focusing on the closure
of the Aurora facility, he subsequently stipulated that his claim of age discrimination
related solely to his application for employment in Department 354.
MDC filed a motion for summary judgment, and the district court issued a written
order granting MDC’s motion. The court concluded: (1) Lewis “was not suitably
qualified for the two entry-level positions” in Department 354 because his grade level at
the time of application was “much higher than an entry-level position” and he “did not
express to [Darrah] that he would be willing to accept an entry level position”; (2) Lewis’
experience was not germane to the openings in Department 354 because his relevant
experience was not recent and did not fit the specific needs; and (3) Lewis did not
actually apply for the two entry-level positions in Department 354. Appellant’s append.
III at 669-70. Moreover, the court rejected Lewis' “subjective belief that MDC was trying
to save money on retirement benefits,” as well as evidence of stray remarks made by
certain MDC employees concerning his age and appearance. Id. at 670. The court
concluded that, even if Lewis could present a prima facie case of age discrimination, he
could not “meet his burden on summary judgment of discrediting MDC’s
nondiscriminatory reasons for his nonselection and presenting credible evidence to show
that age actually played a determinative role in MDC’s decisionmaking process.” Id. at
673.
We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the
same standard as the district court under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Universal Money Centers
4 v. American Tel. & Tel., 22 F.3d 1527, 1529 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 655
(1994). Summary judgment is appropriate if “there is no genuine issue as to any material
fact and . . . the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 56(c). We examine the factual record and reasonable inferences therefrom in the light
most favorable to the nonmoving party. Applied Genetics, Intern. v. First Affiliated
Securities, 912 F.2d 1238, 1241 (10th Cir. 1990). If there is no genuine issue of material
fact in dispute, we must determine whether the district court correctly applied the law. Id.
Although this case arose from a reduction in force at MDC’s Aurora facility,
Lewis' theory of discrimination is more analogous to a failure-to-hire claim. Specifically,
Lewis is not claiming that he was treated less favorably than younger employees during
the reduction in force; rather, he is claiming the positions he allegedly applied for in
Department 354 were filled by younger people. Accordingly, to establish a prima facie
case of age discrimination under a “failure-to-hire” theory, Lewis must show (1) that he
belongs to the protected class, (2) that he applied for and was qualified for the job, (3)
that despite his qualifications he was rejected, and (4) that the employer either ultimately
filled the position with someone sufficiently younger to permit an inference of age
discrimination or continued to seek applicants from among those having Lewis'
qualifications. Barber v. CSX Distribution Services, 68 F.3d 694, 698 (3d Cir. 1995); see
also Coe v. Yellow Freight System, 646 F.2d 444, 448-49 (10th Cir. 1981).
Once a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, the law creates a presumption of
unlawful discrimination, and the defendant employer must articulate a legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reason for not hiring the plaintiff. Texas Dept. of Community Affairs
v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 254 (1981). The employer "need not persuade the court that it
5 was actually motivated by the proffered reasons," but satisfies its burden merely by
raising "a genuine issue of fact as to whether it discriminated against the plaintiff." Id. at
254. If the burden of production is carried by the defendant, the plaintiff is given the
opportunity to prove the reasons provided by the employer are a pretext for
discrimination. Id. at 253. The plaintiff retains the ultimate burden of proving he was the
victim of intentional discrimination. Id.
Assuming for purposes of argument that Lewis can establish a prima facie case of
discrimination, MDC has offered evidence demonstrating legitimate, nondiscriminatory
reasons why he was not hired for either of the positions in Department 354. Specifically,
the testimony of Darrah indicates that Lewis did not have the recent technological
background or experience. This testimony is supported by a review of Lewis'
employment biography, which indicates his educational background was in psychology,
not engineering. In contrast, Helbing and Murray had recently graduated with degrees in
industrial and systems engineering and human factors engineering, respectively.
Appellant’s append. II at 521, 532. Although Lewis offered evidence indicating he had
actual work experience in the area of human factors, he has not controverted Darrah’s
conclusion that this experience was “not technically matched to what these programs
needed.” Appellant’s append. I at 284; see Branson v. Price River Coal Co., 853 F.2d
768, 772 (10th Cir.1988) (in deciding whether an employee is qualified for a position
with her employer, "[i]t is the perception of the decision maker which is relevant, not [the
employee's] perception of herself.").
Finally, Lewis has failed to present any evidence from which a finder of fact could
conclude that MDC’s proffered reasons for not hiring him in Department 354 were
6 pretextual. With respect to the various remarks allegedly made by management personnel
at the Aurora facility concerning his clothing and age, they amount to nothing more than
“stray” remarks that have no connection to the alleged discrimination. See Palochko v.
Manville Corp., 21 F.3d 981, 982 (10th Cir. 1994); Cone v. Longmont United Hosp.
Ass'n, 14 F.3d 526, 531 (10th Cir. 1994). None of the people who allegedly made these
remarks had any input into Darrah’s hiring decisions. As for the lack of written job
descriptions for either of the positions at issue, this fact is insufficient to demonstrate
pretext when considered with all of the surrounding facts. Undoubtedly, such evidence
would have bolstered Darrah’s testimony concerning the qualifications necessary for the
positions. However, Lewis has not legitimately attacked those qualifications, and the lack
of written job descriptions is irrelevant.
Lewis has failed to present sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of fact
concerning whether MDC discriminated against him on the basis of his age. The order
granting MDC's motion for summary judgment is AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Mary Beck Briscoe Circuit Judge