Age Discrimination Claims & Circumstantial Evidence: Attempts to Make a Mountain Out of a Molehill Often Difficult to Prevail Upon

Roberts v. IBM - Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals

Facts: George Roberts worked for IBM and was subsequently fired after a few years at the company and a history of poor work performance.  Notwithstanding the history of poor work performance, Roberts brought an age discrimination claim against IBM and focused on two instances:  1) an instant message between Human Resources managers that talked about Roberts's "shelf life" and 2) the name of IBM's program used to eliminate positions that were not cost effective, labeled "Project Blue."  Roberts argued that the discussion of his "shelf life" was a reference to his age and that the name of IBM's "Project Blue" constituted direct evidence of age discrimination, given that "blue" often referred to older people with blue hair.  The District Court granted summary judgment for IBM.

Holding:  The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals held that Roberts could not succeed on his age discrimination claim and the lower court's grant of summary judgment for IBM was proper.  In essence, the Court found that without direct evidence of age discrimination by IBM, under the McDonnell Douglas burden shifting analysis, Roberts failed to produce sufficient circumstantial evidence to prevail as IBM had a valid nondiscriminatory reason for firing him.

In regard to Roberts's "shelf life" argument, the Court held that this language was at worst an inartful reference to Roberts's amount of billable work.  The Human Resources managers had discussed Roberts's "shelf life" in the context of whether they could justify paying him if there was not enough work, rather than a reference to Roberts's age.  The Court held that this "shelf life" language failed to amount to direct evidence of age discrimination and would qualify, at most, as circumstantial evidence.  Under McDonnell Douglas, even if Roberts's evidence was to be believed, Roberts's poor work performance was a valid nondiscriminatory reason provided by IBM for firing him.

The Court then addressed the "Project Blue" argument and held that, standing alone, the Human Resource department's mention of the color blue in its program could not reasonably be taken as a reference to anyone's age.  In fact, Roberts had not even been discharged as a part of "Project Blue" but instead was fired through a different process several months later.  Consequently, the evidence of "Project Blue" failed to amount to direct evidence of age discrimination.  The Court further held that under McDonnell Douglas, even if Roberts's evidence was to be believed, Roberts's poor work performance was a valid nondiscriminatory reason provided by IBM for firing him.

Judgment: The District Court's grant of summary judgment was affirmed, finding that Roberts had failed to assert a valid age discrimination claim.

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Gorsuch

Date:  November 5, 2013

Opinion:  http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/12/12-5169.pdf