Palasota v. Haggar Clothing Co.
2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 18171, 342 F.3d 569, 84 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 41,491 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In an Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) case, a plaintiff's establishment of a prima facie case, combined with sufficient evidence for a jury to disbelieve the employer's proffered non-discriminatory reason for termination, is adequate to support a verdict of liability without requiring proof that a younger employee was given preferential treatment under nearly identical circumstances.
Facts:
- Jimmy Palasota was a 51-year-old Sales Associate who had worked for Haggar Clothing Co. for 28 years and was considered an outstanding employee.
- In the mid-1990s, Haggar's management sought a younger corporate image and created a Retail Marketing Associate (RMA) program staffed predominantly by women in their late twenties and early thirties.
- During this period, Haggar terminated numerous older, male Sales Associates while simultaneously hiring a large number of younger RMAs to perform similar sales functions.
- After Haggar lost a key account that comprised 85% of Palasota's commissions, a manager planned a new territory for him, but new management refused to grant it.
- Instead, Vice President of Sales Tim Lyons offered Palasota a less desirable territory or a severance package, which Palasota declined.
- Lyons then sent a memo recommending severance packages for approximately 14 sales associates, all in their 'early fifties or older,' to 'thin the ranks' and bring in 'new players.'
- Haggar management, including the company president, made several age-related comments, referring to a 'graying of the sales force' and a desire for 'race horses' not 'plow horses.'
- Haggar terminated Palasota in writing, stating his position was 'eliminated' due to a 'reconfiguration of the sales force.'
Procedural Posture:
- Jimmy Palasota filed a charge of age discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which issued a determination finding cause.
- Palasota then sued Haggar Clothing Co. in U.S. District Court, alleging a violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).
- A jury trial was held, and the jury returned a verdict for Palasota, awarding him $842,218.96 in back pay.
- Following the verdict, Haggar filed a Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law.
- The district court granted Haggar's motion, setting aside the jury's verdict and entering judgment for Haggar.
- Palasota, as the appellant, appealed the district court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth 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:
Did the district court err in granting a judgment as a matter of law for the employer, Haggar Clothing Co., by finding insufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that age was a determinative factor in Jimmy Palasota's termination?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes, the district court erred in granting judgment as a matter of law. Under the standard set by Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing, a plaintiff's prima facie case of discrimination, combined with sufficient evidence to discredit the employer's explanation, is enough for a jury to find liability. The district court improperly required Palasota to show that a younger employee received preferential treatment, which is not the only way to prove age discrimination. The court also wrongly ignored highly probative evidence, such as the memo proposing to 'thin the ranks' of older employees, and improperly dismissed management's age-related comments as 'stray remarks.' When viewed as a whole, the evidence—including the shifting reasons for termination, the statistical data, the discriminatory comments, and the memo—provided a sufficient basis for a reasonable jury to infer that Haggar's stated reason was pretext for age discrimination.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the application of the Supreme Court's Reeves standard in the Fifth Circuit, making it more difficult for employers to overturn jury verdicts in discrimination cases on sufficiency of the evidence grounds. It clarifies that circumstantial evidence, including age-related comments previously dismissed as 'stray remarks,' is highly probative when combined with evidence of pretext. The ruling broadens the type of evidence a plaintiff can use to prove their case, emphasizing that a holistic view of all evidence is required and that a plaintiff does not need to fit their proof into a rigid 'preferential treatment' framework. This lowers the evidentiary bar for plaintiffs to survive judgment as a matter of law and reach a jury.
