In ADEA action, retired employee sought to be rehired. Company's concern
about how many more years retired employee would work was not evidence of
age discrimination.
Lee v. Rheem Mfg. Co.,
432 F.3d 849 (8th Cir. December 28, 2005) - This is an ADEA action alleging
failure to rehire. George Roger Lee was the Human Resources Manager at
Rheem's Fort Smith, Arkansas plant. He retired in 1996 after being diagnosed
with chronic fatigue syndrome. In October 2002, the position of Labor
Relations Administrator became available. This position reported to the
Human Resources Manager. Lee, who had suffered some reversals in the stock
market, applied for the position, but was not selected. He brought this
lawsuit alleging age discrimination. The district court granted summary
judgment for Rheem. The Eighth Circuit affirms. On appeal, Lee argues that
he presented sufficient "direct evidence" of discrimination based upon the
following comments made by Rheem executives: (1) "things have changed a
lot," (2) would Lee be able to "grasp these new processes," and (3) Rheem
had to "plan for the future." Also, Lee was asked how long he intended to
work if hired. The Court finds that these comments are not direct evidence
of discrimination. Although Lee's expected years of work is related to his
age, "factors other than age, but which may be correlative with age, do not
implicate the prohibited stereotype, and are thus not prohibited
considerations." With respect to circumstantial evidence, Rheem
articulated several legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its employment
decision: (1) Rheem wanted someone who would work more than a few years; (2)
Rheem wanted someone who had the potential (and desire) to succeed the
current Human Resources Manager; (3) Rheem thought that Lee's goal was not a
challenging career with opportunities for advancement, but simply a desire
to earn short-term money necessitated by his losses in the stock market; (4)
Rheem was concerned about Lee's health; (5) Rheem was concerned about Lee's
display of poor judgment in contacting the local union president to see if
he thought he could work with Lee at a time in which there was great discord
between the union and Rheem; and (6) Rheem believed the person chosen for
the position was better qualified than Lee. The Court reviews Lee's
arguments and finds that he failed to present sufficient evidence of
pretext.
