Court examines fourth prong
of prima facie case in ADEA reduction in force action.
Stidham v. Minnesota Min.
and Mfg., Inc., 399 F.3d 935 (8th Cir. February 25, 2005) - This is an ADEA
reduction in force action. Deborah Stidham worked for 3M from 1976 to 2001
in Columbia, Missouri ("3M Columbia"). In 2000, she moved from the
production department to a newly created "Environmental Administrator"
position within the plant engineering department. However, due to an
economic downturn, Stidham's department manager, Larry Wall, was directed to
identify redundant salaried positions in the department. The term
"redundant" as used by 3M means those positions whose duties could be
eliminated or reassigned to others without negatively impacting plant
efficiency or customer service. Wall identified three positions as redundant
in the department, including Stidham's position. All three positions were
held by persons over age forty. Stidham was age 50. Overall, 3M Columbia eliminated sixteen
salaried positions, fifteen of which were held by persons over age forty.
Stidham was age 50. Stidham's duties that were deemed non-redundant were assumed
by an individual under age forty and an individual over age forty. Stidham
was offered her old job back or a severance package in exchange for a
release. She chose instead to file this lawsuit. In a reduction in force
case, the fourth prong of the prima facie case requires "some
additional evidence that age was a factor in the employer's action." In the
absence of direct evidence, this fourth prong can be satisfied by presenting
statistical evidence or circumstantial evidence. Stidham's statistical
evidence is not statistically significant where the reduction in force only
resulted in a 4% decline of salaried personnel in her department (72% to
68%) and only a one-half year decrease in the average age of the work force.
Her circumstantial evidence is also insufficient. Stidham's position was new
to 3M and so it is not surprising it was eliminated. The mere fact that
younger persons took on some of her responsibilities is not sufficient
evidence of age discrimination. In fact, her supervisor had recently given
her a positive performance evaluation and she had recently been promoted to
the position. Also, seven employees older than Stidham remained in the
department. Therefore, the district court's grant of summary judgment is
affirmed.
