Missouri Lawyers Media Missouri legal news and public notices
Where a security guard fired at age 76 for a delayed report of an accident brought an age discrimination case against his employer, summary judgment for the defendant is affirmed because the employer articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the termination, and the plaintiff did not raise a genuine question of material fact as to whether the reasons were pretext or whether age was the “but-for” reason for the termination.
Motive
Opinion concurring in part, dissenting in part by Smith, J.: “I concur in the majority’s reasoning to the extent that it concludes that Johnson submitted sufficient evidence to raise genuine issues of material fact about each element of a prima facie case of age discrimination. I also agree that Securitas articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for terminating Johnson’s employment. But, unlike the majority, I find that Johnson has ‘adduce[d] enough admissible evidence to raise genuine doubt as to the legitimacy of [Securitas’s] motive, even if that evidence did not directly contradict or disprove [Securitas’s] articulated reasons for its actions.’”
Judgment is affirmed.
Johnson v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. (MLW No. 67011/Case No. 12-2129 – 15 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Bye, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri (Lawrence P. Kaplan, St Louis, argued for appellant; Joshua M. Avigad appeared on the brief) (Burton D. Garland Jr., St Louis, argued for appellee; Heidi Kuns Durr appeared on the brief).
Read the full text of this opinion. (PDF)
