The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed a district court’s decision to dismiss an age discrimination claim brought by the former men’s basketball coach at Mount Saint Mary College.
In so ruling, the court reasoned that given “the totality of the circumstances as we must, these facts do not reasonably suggest that age was the ‘but for’ cause of the College’s decision.”
Plaintiff-appellant Duane Davis was the college’s part-time, men’s basketball coach for 14 consecutive seasons. Each year, the college would resign him to a one-year contract. But after three consecutive losing seasons, Davis learned that the college would not be renewing his contract. So at age 69, he resigned just prior to the 2009-2010 season.
The college then created a new position for a full-time, men’s basketball coach, formed a search committee to interview applicants, and, after interviewing six individuals, hired Ryan Kadlubowski at age 26.
Subsequently, Davis sued the college claiming that the decision not to renew his contract was an adverse employment action motivated solely by his age in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq.
ADEA claims are analyzed under McDonnell Douglas’s three-step burden-shifting framework. See Gorzynski v. JetBlue Airways Corp., 596 F.3d 93, 106 (2d Cir. 2010).
Under that framework:
–A plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case by a preponderance of the evidence, i.e. allege facts that are adequate to support a legal claim.
–Then the burden of production shifts to the employer, to rebut this prima facie case by “articulating some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the employee’s rejection.”
–Then the employee may prevail only if he can show that the employer’s response is merely a pretext for behavior actually motivated by discrimination.
Davis claimed only that the district court erred at step three “in light of three facts: (1) he was more experienced than Kadlubowski, (2) the athletic director made a stray comment that Kadlubowski was an ‘impressive young man,’ and (3) the college renewed contracts for younger coaches of different sports that had similar or worse records than he did. “
But “considering the totality of the circumstances as we must, these facts do not reasonably suggest that age was the ‘but for’ cause of the College’s decision. Gorzynski, 596 F.3d at 106.
“We have considered all of Davis’ arguments on appeal and find them to be without merit.”
Duane Davis v. Mount Saint Mary College; 2nd Cir.; 12-2727-cv, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 5590; 3/21/13
Attorneys of Record: (for appellant) Michael H. Sussman, Sussman & Watkins, Goshen, NY. (for appellee) James P. Drohan (Laura Wong-Pan, on the brief), Thomas, Drohan, Waxman, Petigrow & Mayle, LLP, Hopewell Junction, NY.
