Barber v. CSX Distribution Services
1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 28802, 69 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 81, 68 F.3d 694 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A general complaint of unfair treatment is not legally protected activity under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act's (ADEA) anti-retaliation provision. To be protected, an employee's complaint must explicitly or implicitly communicate a belief that the employer has engaged in unlawful age discrimination.
Facts:
- Simon Barber, age 52, had been employed by CSX Transportation for thirty-eight years when a Territorial Account Executive position became available in March 1990.
- Barber and three other individuals were identified as qualified applicants for the position; the other qualified applicants were ages 53, 44, and 37.
- Robert Edmonds, the hiring manager, interviewed the two younger applicants (ages 44 and 37) but did not interview or discuss the position with Barber.
- Edmonds selected Kathy Ball, age 44, for the position.
- On May 23, 1990, Barber wrote a letter to the Human Resources Department stating he was 'puzzled' that the position was awarded to a 'less qualified individual' but did not mention age or age discrimination.
- Shortly after the letter was sent, Edmonds called Barber into his office and expressed disappointment over the complaint.
- Approximately six months later, in November 1990, Edmonds was mandated to eliminate one of three clerical positions and chose to eliminate Barber's position of Chief Clerk.
Procedural Posture:
- Simon Barber sued CSX Transportation, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
- Barber alleged age discrimination for failure to promote and unlawful retaliation under the ADEA.
- The jury heard the ADEA claims and returned special verdicts in favor of Barber on both the age discrimination and retaliation claims.
- Following the verdict, CSX filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law.
- The district court granted the motion, overturning the jury's verdict on both ADEA claims.
- Barber, as appellant, appealed the district court's grant of judgment as a matter of law to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a general letter of complaint to human resources about being passed over for a promotion for a 'less qualified individual,' without mentioning age, constitute 'protected conduct' under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act's anti-retaliation provision?
Opinions:
Majority - McKee, Circuit Judge
No. A general complaint of unfair treatment that does not explicitly or implicitly allege that age was the reason for the adverse action does not constitute 'protected conduct' under the ADEA's anti-retaliation provision. The ADEA protects employees who have 'opposed any practice made unlawful' by the statute, which specifically refers to age discrimination. Barber's letter complained that a 'less qualified individual' was promoted but was too vague to alert the employer that he was alleging illegal age discrimination. A complaint of general unfairness is insufficient to trigger the statute's anti-retaliation protections. Therefore, the district court properly overturned the jury's verdict on the retaliation claim. However, the court also reversed the district court's judgment on the separate age discrimination claim, finding that a reasonable jury could have disbelieved the employer's proffered reasons for not promoting Barber and inferred discrimination from evidence like inconsistent interview practices and inaccurate 'interview report forms'.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the threshold for what constitutes 'protected conduct' under the ADEA's anti-retaliation clause. It establishes that an employee's grievance must have a certain level of specificity to be protected, placing the onus on the employee to articulate that they believe the opposed conduct is based on age discrimination. The ruling provides employers with more certainty about which complaints trigger anti-retaliation duties, as vague or general complaints of unfairness do not suffice. Consequently, this decision may guide how employees frame their complaints and how employers respond to internal grievances.
