In Dabbasi v. Motiva Enterprises, L.L.C., 2024 WL 3422912 (5th Cir. July 16, 2024), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the lower court’s summary judgement dismissal on plaintiff’s age discrimination claim asserted under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).
From the decision:
We begin with whether Motiva has proffered a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for Dabbasi’s termination. Motiva alleged it terminated Dabbasi because of his unsatisfactory performance ratings and evaluations, “poor attitude,” and failure to improve his work performance. Regarding his performance, Dabbasi was placed on the 2019 PIP because the one-on-one meetings were ineffective, and HR advised a PIP would be appropriate. Further, on multiple occasions, Motiva received complaints about Dabbasi’s work ethic and overall attitude, including that he was “aggressive,” “intimidating,” and did not “listen,” and that other employees “f[ound] it a challenge to speak frankly with him or question his conclusions.” Motiva has thus satisfied its burden to proffer non-discriminatory reasons for Dabbasi’s termination.
The final step in McDonnell Douglas is to decide whether the “proffered explanation is unworthy of credence.” First, and perhaps the most suggestive of pretext, are Burnham’s and Moore’s oral statements to Dabbasi about “[r]otat[ing] younger people.” This, combined with Motiva’s decision to fill coordinator positions with “early-career” employees, undermines the veracity of Motiva’s explanations. Yes, Motiva had a non-discriminatory explanation of what “early-career” meant, but when joined with a right given only to “younger people” to be rotated among jobs, that non-discriminatory reason may be taken by a fact finder as not credible. Further, Motiva gave Dabbasi multiple President’s Awards for his performance and told him everything was “hunky-dory,” yet placed him on multiple PIPs and promised him a role that did not exist or “materialize.”
[Citations and quotation marks omitted.]
Accordingly, the court concluded that the evidence identified by plaintiff is sufficient to allow a finding that age discrimination was the cause of his termination in violation of the ADEA, such that plaintiff’s age discrimination claim will proceed to a jury.