dunn v. trustees of boston university, 1st cir. (2014)

7/26/2019 Dunn v. Trustees of Boston University, 1st Cir. (2014)

1/26

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 13- 2272

MI CHAEL DUNN,

Pl ai nt i f f , Appel l ant ,

v.

TRUSTEES OF BOSTON UNI VERSI TY,

Def endant s, Appel l ees.

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT

FOR THE DI STRI CT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[ Hon. Dougl as P. Woodl ock, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Howard, Thompson, Ci r cui t J udgesand Lapl ant e, * Di st r i ct J udge.

Lana Sul l i van, wi t h whom Ronal d M. Davi ds was on br i ef , f orpl ai nt i f f - appel l ant .

Lawr ence S. El swi t f or def endant s- appel l ant s.

J ul y 30, 2014

*

Of t he Di st r i ct of New Hampshi r e, si t t i ng by desi gnat i on.


2/26

LAPLANTE, District Judge. Mi chael Dunn appeal s t he ent r y

of summar y j udgment agai nst hi m on hi s cl ai m t hat hi s f or mer

empl oyer , Bost on Uni ver si t y ( "BU") , di schar ged hi m because of hi s

age i n vi ol at i on of t he Massachuset t s Fai r Empl oyment Pr act i ces

Act , Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B, 4. 1B. The di st r i ct cour t r ul ed

t hat Dunn had f ai l ed t o make out a pr i ma f aci e case of age

di scr i mi nat i on. Wi t hout r ul i ng on t he suf f i ci ency of Dunn s pr i ma

f aci e showi ng we af f i r m. Even assumi ng t hat Dunn made t hat pr i ma

f aci e showi ng, he f ai l ed t o demonst r at e a genui ne i ssue of mat er i al

f act as t o whet her BU s st at ed r easons f or di schar gi ng hi m, as par t

of a r eor gani zat i on of i t s i nf or mat i on t echnol ogy depar t ment , wer e

pr et ext ual .

I.

A.

We set f or t h t he f act s i n t he l i ght most f avor abl e t o

Dunn. See, e. g. , Pont e v. St eel case, I nc. , 741 F. 3d 310, 313 ( 1st

Ci r . 2014) . Af t er r ecei vi ng a bachel or s degr ee i n comput er

engi neer i ng, i n 1987, Dunn worked f or a year or so as a hardware

suppor t speci al i st bef or e becomi ng a syst ems admi ni st r at or and,

l at er , t he manager of t he comput er suppor t cent er , f or a

Massachuset t s company wi t h 1, 500 empl oyees. I n 1992, Dunn began

wor ki ng f or BU, as a comput er har dwar e r epai r t echni ci an. Af t er

sever al pr omot i ons, i n t he f al l of 2009, at age 47, Dunn assumed

t he t i t l e of "Assi st ant Di r ect or of Di st r i but ed Comput i ng, " a gr oup

- 2-


3/26

wi t hi n BU s I nf or mat i on Ser vi ces & Technol ogy ( " I S&T") depar t ment .

I n t hi s j ob, Dunn super vi sed ni ne empl oyees provi di ng hi gh- l evel

deskt op comput er servi ces and suppor t t o f acul t y and st af f .

Ear l i er i n 2009, BU had hi r ed Tracy Schr oeder , age 38, as

t he vi ce pr esi dent of I S&T. Schr oeder began maki ng or gani zat i onal

changes, i ncl udi ng t he mer ger of t he di st r i but ed comput i ng gr oup

wi t h anot her gr oup wi t hi n I S&T known as t he " I T hel p cent er . " The

pur pose of t hat change, Schr oeder expl ai ned, was t o " i mpr ove t he

ef f i ci ency of t he depar t ment by br i ngi ng st af f . . . who [ wer e]

per f or mi ng si mi l ar f unct i ons t oget her i n t eams" and " t o r educe t he

f r agment at i on of t he [ depar t ment s] pr esent at i on t o t he cl i ent

communi t y, " i . e. , BU s st udent s, f acul t y, and st af f . Thi s mer ger

r esul t ed i n t he el i mi nat i on of t he di st r i but ed comput i ng gr oup, and

t he l ayof f of i t s di r ect or ( and Dunn s i mmedi at e super vi sor ) ,

Stephen Rosman, who was 59 year s ol d at t he t i me.

The mer ger al so r esul t ed i n a t i t l e change f or Dunn, who

became "manager of f i el d suppor t " f or t he I T hel p cent er i n Oct ober

2009. Dunn r et ai ned t he same sal ar y and benef i t s, but l ost

manager i al r esponsi bi l i t y over f our empl oyees, and vi ewed t he t i t l e

change as a demot i on. Wi t hi n t wo mont hs or so, however , t hose

empl oyees were r e- assi gned t o work under Dunn af t er t hei r

super vi sor qui t . Dunn r epor t ed t o St acy Gi anoul i s, age 50, a

pr oj ect di r ect or i n t he hel p cent er .

- 3-


4/26

I n Febr uar y 2010, as par t of t he cont i nued r est r uct ur i ng

of t he I S&T depar t ment , Dunn became "manager of deskt op servi ces-

f i el d suppor t , " whi l e J i l l Beckman, who was t hen ar ound 30 year s

ol d, became "manager of deskt op servi ces- cent r al suppor t . "

Beckman, who hol ds an undergr aduate degr ee i n musi c synt hesi s ( a

maj or she descr i bed as "al l about musi c and comput ers" ) , had

st ar t ed wor ki ng at BU i n 2001, bef or e she compl et ed col l ege. She

began as a "t echni cal consul t ant " at Uni ver si t y Comput er s, a BU-

operated comput er st ore, di agnosi ng and r epai r i ng hardware and

sof t ware pr obl ems. I n 2006, Beckman was pr omoted t o t he posi t i on

of "manager of t echni cal ser vi ces" at t he st or e, so t hat i t s

t echni cal consul t ant s r epor t ed t o her . Dur i ng her t i me at

Uni ver si t y Comput er s, Beckman wor ked wi t h di f f er ent " t i cket i ng

systems" used t o t r ack ser vi ce r equest s, cont r i but i ng t o t he

devel opment of t wo such syst ems ( known as " Oompa" and "OneHel p") .

I n Apr i l 2010, Gi anoul i s cal l ed Dunn t o appr i se hi m of

some f ur t her upcomi ng or gani zat i onal changes, i ncl udi ng t hat , due

t o over work, t he empl oyee t hen ser vi ng as "manager of t he ser vi ce

desk" woul d have her t i t l e changed t o "manager , account s and

st udent ser vi ces" and be r el i eved of her r esponsi bi l i t i es over t he

ser vi ce desk i t sel f . Gi anoul i s expl ai ned t hat t hi s woul d open a

new "servi ce desk manager " posi t i on, but t hat "he [was] r eal l y

l ooki ng f or a younger per son i n t hat r ol e. " Dunn di d not expr ess

any i nt er est i n t he new posi t i on, whi ch, as he t est i f i ed at hi s

- 4-


5/26

deposi t i on, of f er ed a " l esser gr ade [ and] pay" t han t he j ob he had

at t he t i me. Ul t i mat el y, BU hi r ed a 35- year - ol d f or t he ser vi ce

desk manager j ob.

A f ew weeks l at er , i n ear l y May 2010, Gi anoul i s submi t t ed

a wr i t t en pr oposal t o Schr oeder f or r eor gani zi ng t he deskt op

ser vi ces gr oup. I n addi t i on t o di vi di ng t he r esponsi bi l i t i es of

t he manager of t he servi ce desk, as j ust di scussed, t hi s pr oposal

combi ned t he r esponsi bi l i t i es of t he "cent r al suppor t " posi t i on

hel d by Beckman and t he "f i el d suppor t " posi t i on hel d by Dunn i nt o

a si ngl e new posi t i on, "manager of t he [ d] eskt op [ s] er vi ces t eam. "

Gi anoul i s expl ai ned t hat , whi l e deskt op ser vi ces had i ni t i al l y been

di vi ded i nt o t he " f i el d suppor t " and "cent r al suppor t " t eams, "each

wi t h i t s own manager , as we worked t hr ough t he merger . . . [ a] s

t hese two gr oups become more i ntegr at ed and wi t h t he adopt i on of

OneHel p as our t i cket i ng syst em i t i s cl ear t her e needs t o be one

operat i onal manager of t he Deskt op Servi ces t eamt o manage the day

t o day suppor t act i vi t i es. "

Gi anoul i s f ur t her pr oposed t hat t he new manager of

deskt op servi ces posi t i on be gi ven t o Beckman, ci t i ng her "hi st or y

and per f ormance of act i vel y managi ng a suppor t gr oup" and

"knowl edge of ser vi ce management syst ems, " as wel l as her r ol e i n

devel opi ng "OneHel p, " t he t i cket i ng syst em. A j ob descr i pt i on f or

t he "manager of deskt op ser vi ces" posi t i on awarded t o Beckman had

been compl et ed i n Oct ober 2009, but , cont r ar y t o wr i t t en BU pol i cy,

- 5-


6/26

was never post ed i n i t s j ob l i st i ngs ( t hough Gi anoul i s di d di scuss

t he wr i t t en r eor gani zat i on pr oposal wi t h an empl oyee i n BU s human

r esour ces depar t ment , who sai d she had "no obj ect i ons" ) . Nor di d

Schr oeder or Gi anoul i s consi der any candi dat es f or t he j ob besi des

Beckman.

Gi anoul i s al so pr oposed t hat Dunn- - who was 47 years ol d

at t hat poi nt - - woul d be l ai d of f . The r est r uct ur i ng of t he deskt op

servi ces group af f ect ed ot her ol der empl oyees as wel l , t hough none

adver sel y: t hr ee empl oyees i n t hei r 40s r ecei ved pr omot i ons, whi l e

a 56 year - ol d and a 60- year - ol d r et ai ned t hei r j obs. Schr oeder

appr oved Gi anoul i s s proposal and, on May 25, 2010, Gi anoul i s

i nf ormed Dunn t hat hi s j ob was bei ng el i mi nated due t o

r est r uctur i ng.

At hi s deposi t i on i n t hi s case, Gi anoul i s t est i f i ed t hat

Dunn "was never consi dered f or " t he manager of deskt op ser vi ces

posi t i on because Beckman "was al r eady doi ng t he rol e" i n her pr i or

j ob as manager of deskt op ser vi ces- cent r al suppor t . Gi anoul i s

expl ai ned t hat , dur i ng Beckman s t i me i n t hat j ob, she "pr ovi ded

deskt op suppor t t o st udent s, st af f and f acul t y . . . i n a hi gh

vol ume envi r onment . " Dunn s r ol e as f i el d support manager ,

Gi anoul i s r ecal l ed, was mor e l i mi t ed, "onl y suppor t i ng a sel ect

gr oup of admi ni st r at i ve st af f " and doi ng "a l ot of vendor

negot i at i on, " as wel l as "busi ness appl i cat i ons suppor t " f or t he

"sel ect gr oup of cl i ent s t hat he suppor t ed. " Gi anoul i s added t hat

- 6-


7/26

Dunn had " t ol d [ hi m] speci f i cal l y t hat he wasn t i nt er est ed i n

deskt op suppor t , he was i nt erest ed i n Wi ndows syst em management , "

whi ch he consi der ed "hi s ar ea of exper t i se. "

B.

I n November 2010, Dunn f i l ed a char ge of di scr i mi nat i on

agai nst BU wi t h the Massachuset t s Commi ss i on Agai nst

Di scr i mi nat i on. He subsequent l y wi t hdr ew t he charge and br ought

sui t agai nst BU i n Massachuset t s Super i or Cour t , cl ai mi ng age

di scr i mi nat i on i n vi ol at i on of bot h t he f eder al Age Di scr i mi nat i on

i n Empl oyment Act , 29 U. S. C. 621 et seq. , and i t s st at e- l aw

anal og, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B, 4. 1B. BU r emoved t he case to

t he di st r i ct cour t , i nvoki ng i t s f eder al quest i on j ur i sdi cti on. 28

U. S. C. 1331.

I n due cour se, BU f i l ed a mot i on f or summary j udgment ,

see Fed. R. Ci v. P. 56, ar gui ng t hat Dunn coul d not est abl i sh a

pr i ma f aci e case of age di scr i mi nat i on under ei t her f eder al or

st at e l aw and t hat , i n any event , BU had l egi t i mat e,

nondi scr i mi nat or y r easons f or l ayi ng of f Dunn, who l acked evi dence

t hat t hose r easons wer e pr et extual . Dunn s f i r st r esponse t o BU s

summary j udgment mot i on was a mot i on seeki ng vol unt ary di smi ssal of

hi s ADEA cl ai m wi t h pr ej udi ce, see Fed. R. Ci v. P. 41( a) ( 2) , and

f or t he di st r i ct cour t t o decl i ne t o exer ci se suppl ement al

j ur i sdi ct i on over t he r emai ni ng st at e- l aw age di scr i mi nat i on cl ai m,

see 28 U. S. C. 1367( c) - - r el i ef whi ch, i f gr ant ed, woul d have

- 7-


8/26

r esul t ed i n r emand of t he case t o t he super i or cour t . As t he basi s

f or t hi s mot i on, Dunn st ated t hat " t he st andard on summary j udgment

f or di scr i mi nat i on cl ai ms ar i si ng under f eder al l aw i s

si gni f i cant l y l ess l i ber al t han the st andar d on summar y j udgment

f or di scr i mi nat i on cl ai ms ar i si ng under st at e l aw. " I n a deci si on

t hat Dunn has not quest i oned on appeal , t he di st r i ct cour t

di smi ssed t he ADEA cl ai m, but r ef used to remand t he chapt er 151B

cl ai m t o st at e cour t , decl ar i ng t hat "such f or um shoppi ng i s

cl ear l y i mpr oper . " Dunn v. Tr s. of Bost on Uni v. , No. 11- 10672,

2013 WL 5235167, at *2 ( D. Mass. Sept . 16, 2013) .

Af t er Dunn f i l ed hi s opposi t i on t o BU s summary j udgment

mot i on, t he di st r i ct cour t hear d or al ar gument on i t and, as not ed

at t he out set , gr ant ed t he mot i on, r ul i ng t hat Dunn had not made

out a pr i ma f aci e case that he was l ai d of f because of hi s age.

I d. at *7. As a r esul t , t he di st r i ct cour t di d not r each BU s

al t er nat i ve ar gument t hat , even i f Dunn coul d est abl i sh a pr i ma

f aci e case of age di scr i mi nat i on, he coul d not demonst r at e a

genui ne i ssue as t o whet her BU s st at ed r easons f or l ayi ng hi mof f

wer e pr et extual . Thi s appeal f ol l owed.

II.

Summar y j udgment i s appropr i at e wher e " t he movant shows

t hat t her e i s no genui ne di sput e as t o any mat er i al f act and t he

movant i s ent i t l ed t o j udgment as a mat t er of l aw. " Fed. R. Ci v.

P. 56( a) . "A di sput e i s genui ne i f t he evi dence about t he f act i s

- 8-


9/26

such t hat a r easonabl e j ur y coul d r esol ve t he poi nt i n t he f avor of

t he non- movi ng par t y. A f act i s mat er i al i f i t has t he pot ent i al

of det er mi ni ng t he out come of t he l i t i gat i on. " Pat co Const r . Co.

v. Peopl e s Uni t ed Bank, 684 F. 3d 197, 206- 07 ( 1st Ci r . 2012)

( quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .

We r evi ew t he di st r i ct cour t s ent r y of summary j udgment

de novo, "dr aw[ i ng] al l r easonabl e i nf er ence i n f avor of t he non-

movi ng par t y whi l e i gnor i ng concl usory al l egat i ons, i mpr obabl e

i nf er ences, and unsuppor t ed specul at i on. " Al i cea v. Machet e Musi c,

744 F. 3d 773, 778 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) ( quot at i on mar ks and br acket i ng

omi t t ed) . We ar e not wedded t o t he di st r i ct cour t s r at i onal e, but

may af f i r mt he ent r y of summary j udgment on any gr ound suppor t ed by

t he r ecor d. See, e. g. , Bost on Pr op. Exch. Tr ansf er Co. v.

I ant osca, 720 F. 3d 1, 10 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) .

III.

"Gener al l y, a pl ai nt i f f who i s t er mi nat ed f r om [ hi s]

posi t i on est abl i shes a pr i ma f aci e case of di scr i mi nat i on by

pr oduci ng evi dence t hat [ 1] [ he] i s a member of a cl ass pr ot ect ed

by [ Mass. Gen. Laws] ch. 151B; [ 2] [ he] per f or med [ hi s] j ob at an

accept abl e l evel ; [ 3] [ he] was t er mi nat ed; and [ 4] [ hi s] empl oyer

sought t o f i l l [ hi s] posi t i on by hi r i ng anot her i ndi vi dual wi t h

qual i f i cat i ons s i mi l ar t o [ hi s] . " Sul l i van v. Li ber t y Mut . I ns.

Co. , 825 N. E. 2d 522, 531 ( Mass. 2005) . As t he Supr eme J udi ci al

Cour t has expl ai ned, however , t he " f our t h el ement i s nonsensi cal i n

- 9-


10/26

a r educt i on i n f or ce case: t he pl ai nt i f f i s not r epl aced, nor does

[ hi s] empl oyer seek to f i l l t he posi t i on, f or t he ver y pur pose of

a wor kf or ce r eor gani zat i on i s gener al l y t o r educe t he number of

empl oyees. " I d.

I n Sul l i van, t hen, t he Supr eme J udi ci al Cour t

"consi der [ ed] how t he f our t h el ement of a pr i ma f aci e case must be

var i ed so t hat a pl ai nt i f f who i s l ai d of f dur i ng a r educt i on i n

f or ce may est abl i sh a pr i ma f aci e case of unl awf ul di scr i mi nat i on, "

i d. , hol di ng t hat a pl ai nt i f f does so "by pr oduci ng some evi dence

t hat [ hi s] l ayof f occur r ed i n ci r cumst ances t hat woul d r ai se a

r easonabl e i nf er ence of unl awf ul di scr i mi nat i on. " I d. at 533- 34;

see al so Woodward v. Emul ex Corp. , 714 F. 3d 632, 637- 38 (1st Ci r .

2013) ( expl ai ni ng t hat " [ w] here t he empl oyer does not r epl ace t he

pl ai nt i f f wi t h a new empl oyee . . . some evi dence t hat t he

empl oyee s l ayof f occur r ed under ci r cumst ances t hat woul d r ai se a

r easonabl e i nf er ence of di scr i mi nat i on i s necessar y to est abl i sh

t he f our t h pr ong" of a pr i ma f aci e age di scr i mi nat i on case under

Massachuset t s l aw) .

Appl yi ng Sul l i van, t he di st r i ct cour t r ul ed t hat Dunn had

f ai l ed t o pr oduce any such evi dence. Dunn chal l enges t hi s rul i ng

on t wo pr i nci pal gr ounds. Fi r st , he ar gues t hat t he t r ansf er of

hi s r esponsi bi l i t i es t o t he younger Beckman suf f i ced, i n and of

i t sel f , t o est abl i sh a pr i ma f aci e case of age di scri mi nat i on,

r egar dl ess of t he addi t i onal ci r cumst ances of hi s l ayof f . That i s

- 10-


11/26

i ncor r ect , as we expl ai n bel ow. Second, Dunn ar gues that t he

ci r cumst ances of hi s l ayof f demonst r at ed a r easonabl e i nf er ence of

age di scr i mi nat i on i n t hat ( a) "Schr oeder and Gi anoul i s devi at ed

f r om t he st andar d appl i cat i on of Uni ver si t y hi r i ng pol i ci es and

pr ocedur es" i n gi vi ng Beckman t he manager of deskt op ser vi ces j ob,

( b) Dunn s qual i f i cat i ons f or t hat posi t i on wer e super i or t o t hose

of Beckman, and ( c) Gi anoul i s s t at ed t o Dunn, i n Apr i l 2010, t hat

Gi anoul i s was " r eal l y l ooki ng f or a younger per son" f or a di f f er ent

j ob, t hat of ser vi ce desk manager . As di scussed i nf r a, we concl ude

t hat , even i f t hese f act s suf f i ce t o make out a pr i ma f aci e case

under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B, 4. 1B, t hey f ai l t o creat e a

genui ne i ssue as t o whet her BU s s t at ed r easons f or l ayi ng Dunn of f

wer e pr et ext s f or age di scr i mi nat i on.

A.

Dunn argues t hat " [ t ] he mere f act t hat an 18 year

di f f erence exi st ed between Dunn and Beckman shoul d be suf f i ci ent

f or Dunn t o est abl i sh a pr i ma f aci e case. " I n Sul l i van, however ,

t he Supr eme J udi ci al Cour t speci f i cal l y decl i ned t o f ol l ow

deci si ons hol di ng t hat a pl ai nt i f f chal l engi ng hi s l ayof f can

est abl i sh t he f our t h el ement of a pr i ma f aci e case of

di scr i mi nat i on "by showi ng, i n [ an] age di scr i mi nat i on cl ai m, t hat

an empl oyee at l east f i ve years younger t han [ hi m] was r et ai ned. "

825 N. E. 2d at 532 ( quotat i on marks omi t t ed) . The Supr eme J udi ci al

Cour t "r ej ect ed t hat f or mul at i on, as such evi dence i s i nsuf f i ci ent

- 11-


12/26

t o est abl i sh a l egal l y mandat or y, r ebut t abl e pr esumpt i on of

unl awf ul di scr i mi nat i on. " I d. ( quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .

Emphasi zi ng that "hi s ent i r e j ob was gi ven to Beckman, "

Dunn ar gues t hat he made out a pr i ma f aci e case on t he t heor y t hat

" t he empl oyer r etai ned unpr otected or younger worker s i n t he same

posi t i on. " I t i s t r ue t hat , i n Sul l i van, t he cour t acknowl edged

t hat , " i n some r educt i on i n f or ce cases, t he f act t hat an empl oyer

r et ai ned i n t he pl ai nt i f f s same posi t i on an empl oyee out si de t he

pl ai nt i f f s pr ot ected cl ass may i ndeed be suf f i ci ent l y pr obat i ve t o

al l ow a f act f i nder t o bel i eve t hat t he empl oyer i nt ent i onal l y

di scri mi nat ed agai nst t he pl ai nt i f f . " I d. at 533. I n a case t hat

Sul l i van cal l ed a "sat i sf act or y" model f or Massachuset t s l aw, i d.

at 532, t hi s cour t has endorsed t he same vi ew as a mat t er of

f eder al empl oyment l aw. See Cur r i er v. Uni t ed Techs. Cor p. , 393

F. 3d 246, 256 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) .

What Dunn f ai l s t o acknowl edge, however , i s t hat t hi s

cour t has al so ( i n anot her case ci t ed appr ovi ngl y i n Sul l i van, 825

N. E. 2d at 532) expr essl y r ej ected the ar gument t hat an empl oyer s

"del egat i on of dut i es t o ot her i ndi vi dual s not i n [ t he pl ai nt i f f s]

pr ot ect ed cl ass amount [ s] t o ret ai ni ng i ndi vi dual s i n t he same

posi t i on" so as t o make out a pr i ma f aci e case of di scr i mi nat i on

under ei t her f eder al or Massachuset t s l aw. Lewi s v. Ci t y of

Bost on, 321 F. 3d 207, 216 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) . As t hi s cour t

expl ai ned, " [ m] er el y demonst r at i ng t hat , as a r esul t of t he

- 12-


13/26

r educt i on i n f or ce, t he empl oyer consol i dat ed posi t i ons or

al l ocat ed dut i es of di schar ged empl oyees t o ot her exi st i ng

empl oyees does not i t sel f r ai se a r easonabl e i nf er ence t hat t he

empl oyer harbored di scr i mi natory ani mus t oward any one empl oyee. " 1

I d. Her e, t hen, t he f act t hat BU r eor gani zed t he deskt op servi ces

gr oup by consol i dat i ng t he f i el d and cent r al suppor t manager j obs

i nt o a si ngl e posi t i on, and awar di ng t hat posi t i on t o an empl oyee

l ess t han 40 year s ol d i nst ead of t o Dunn, does not r ai se a

r easonabl e i nf er ence t hat t he basi s f or t hat deci si on was Dunn s

age ( any more t han i t woul d suggest , si nce Beckman i s a woman and

Dunn i s not , t hat t he basi s f or t hat deci si on was Dunn s sex) .

Despi t e Dunn s suggest i on t o t he cont r ar y, i t makes no

di f f er ence t hat , whi l e hi s posi t i on was el i mi nat ed i n t he

r eor gani zat i on, " t he f unct i ons t hat Dunn per f or med wer e not . "

I ndeed, by def i ni t i on, a r educt i on- i n- f or ce accompl i shed by

consol i dat i ng posi t i ons and r eal l ocat i ng dut i es r esul t s i n t he

1

Dunn seems t o suggest t hat t hi s case does not pr esent a t r ue"consol i dat i on" or " r eal l ocat i on, " ei t her because "Beckman was notdoi ng any part of Dunn s j ob as deskt op ser vi ces manager"pr evi ousl y, or because "Dunn s j ob f unct i ons wer e not di sper sedamong sever al di f f er ent empl oyees" but gi ven ent i r el y t o Beckman.We f ai l t o see how ei t her of t hose f act s i s essent i al t o a"consol i dat i on" or "r eal l ocat i on" as t hi s cour t descr i bed t hoseconcept s i n Lewi s, and Dunn does not expl ai n f ur t her . I t suf f i ces

t o say, t hen, t hat we f i nd Lewi s i nst r uct i ve because ther eor gani zat i on at i ssue her e qui t e cl osel y resembl es t her eor gani zat i on at i ssue t her e. 321 F. 3d at 212 ( not i ng t hat t hedef endant deci ded "t o el i mi nat e t he [ pl ai nt i f f s] posi t i on and t ospr ead [ hi s] dut i es t o ot her posi t i ons, " i ncl udi ng a "new posi t i on,whi ch consol i dat ed t he bul k of [ t he pl ai nt i f f s] dut i es wi t h[ ot her ] r esponsi bi l i t i es" of a di f f er ent exi st i ng posi t i on) .

- 13-


14/26

el i mi nat i on of one or mor e posi t i ons, r at her t han i n t he

el i mi nat i on of t hei r f unct i ons. Agai n, t hi s cour t hel d i n Lewi s

t hat "an empl oyee must come f or war d wi t h somet hi ng mor e t hen

evi dence of t he i nevi t abl e t r ansf er of hi s or her r esponsi bi l i t i es

t o exi st i ng empl oyees" t o make out a pr i ma f aci e case of a

di scri mi nat or y l ayof f . See i d.

Dunn mai nt ai ns t hat such a t r ansf er demonst r ates "t he

cont i nui ng need f or t he work t hat t he empl oyee was per f ormi ng pr i or

t o hi s t er mi nat i on" - - a f act whi ch, he says, t hi s cour t deemed

"suf f i ci ent t o make out a pr i ma f aci e case of di scr i mi nat i on" i n

i t s deci si ons i n Rodr i guez- Tor r es v. Car i bbean For ms Mf r . I nc. , 399

F. 3d 52 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) and Hi dal go v. Over seas Condado I ns.

Agenci es, I nc. , 120 F. 3d 328 ( 1st Ci r . 1997) . Dunn s rel i ance on

t hose cases i s mi spl aced. I n r el evant par t , t hey r ecogni ze si mpl y

t hat an empl oyer s cont i nui ng need f or t he pl ai nt i f f s ser vi ces can

est abl i sh t he f our t h el ement of a pr i ma f aci e case of

di scr i mi nat or y t er mi nat i on, i . e. , t hat he or she was r epl aced, even

i f t he empl oyer does not i n f act hi r e a r epl acement . See

Rodr i guez- Tor r es, 399 F. 3d at 59; Hi dal go, 120 F. 3d at 332- 33.

As al r eady not ed, t hough, t he requi r ement t hat a

pl ai nt i f f pr ove hi s "r epl acement " as par t of hi s pr i ma f aci e

showi ng of di scr i mi nat or y t er mi nat i on " i s nonsensi cal i n a

r educt i on i n f or ce case, " wher e "t he pl ai nt i f f i s not r epl aced"

si nce " t he ver y pur pose of a wor kf or ce r eor gani zat i on i s gener al l y

- 14-


15/26

t o reduce t he number of empl oyees. " 2 Sul l i van, 825 N. E. 2d at 531;

see al so Woodward, 714 F. 3d at 638 ( "The f our t h pr ong [ of t he pr i ma

f aci e case st andar d f or di scr i mi nat or y t er mi nat i on cl ai ms] does not

appl y to a r educt i on- i n- f or ce case . . . wher e t he empl oyer does

not r epl ace t he pl ai nt i f f wi t h a new empl oyee. " ) . Dunn i s wr ong,

t hen, t hat BU s " cont i nui ng need" f or someone t o per f or m hi s

dut i es, as evi nced by the f act of t hei r r eassi gnment t o Beckman,

est abl i shes a pr i ma f aci e case that he was t er mi nated due t o hi s

age. The di st r i ct cour t was cor r ect t hat , f or Dunn t o make out

such a case, he had t o come f orward wi t h evi dence beyond t he mere

f act t hat BU l ai d hi mof f and r eassi gned hi s r esponsi bi l i t i es t o an

empl oyee younger t han 40. See Sul l i van, 825 N. E. 2d at 531.

B.

Dunn al so ar gues t hat , even put t i ng t hat f act asi de, he

pr oduced addi t i onal "evi dence t hat [ hi s] l ayof f occur r ed i n

ci r cumst ances t hat woul d r ai se a r easonabl e i nf er ence of unl awf ul

di scr i mi nat i on" so as t o make out a pr i ma f aci e case t hat he was

t er mi nat ed due t o hi s age. I d. at 533- 34. I f a pl ai nt i f f

successf ul l y est abl i shes a pr i ma f aci e case of empl oyment

di scr i mi nat i on, t he def endant must r espond "by ar t i cul at i ng a

l awf ul r eason f or i t s empl oyment deci si on and pr oduci ng cr edi bl e

evi dence that t he r eason or r easons advanced were the r eal

2

I ndeed, bot h Rodr i guez- Tor r es, 399 F. 3d at 59 n. 5, andHi dal go, 120 F. 3d at 334 n. 5, speci f i cal l y not ed t hat t hey di d noti nvol ve r educt i ons- i n- f or ce.

- 15-


16/26

r easons. " I d. at 538 ( quot at i on mar ks and br acket i ng omi t t ed) ; see

al so, e. g. , Woodward, 714 F. 3d at 638 ( quot i ng McDonnel l Dougl as

Cor p. v. Gr een, 411 U. S. 792, 802 ( 1973) ) . The def endant s "bur den

at t hi s st age i s one of pr oduct i on and not per suasi on; i t need not

pr ove t hat t he r easons wer e nondi scr i mi nat or y. " Sul l i van, 825

N. E. 2d at 538 ( quotat i on marks omi t t ed) ; see al so Woodward, 714

F. 3d at 638. I f t he empl oyer meets i t s bur den of pr oduct i on,

"[ t ] he bur den r et ur ns t o [ t he pl ai nt i f f ] t o est abl i sh t hat t he

basi s of [ t he def endant s] deci si on was unl awf ul di scr i mi nat i on by

' adduci ng evi dence t hat t he r easons gi ven by [ t he def endant ] f or

i t s act i ons wer e mer e pr et ext s t o hi de such di scr i mi nat i on. ' "

Sul l i van, 825 N. E. 2d at 550 ( quot i ng Lewi s, 321 F. 3d at 214) .

The di st r i ct cour t di d not deci de whet her BU had

ar t i cul at ed a nondi scr i mi nat or y reason f or t er mi nat i ng Dunn or , i f

so, whether Dunn had r esponded wi t h evi dence that t he st ated r eason

was a pr et ext f or age di scr i mi nat i on. I nst ead, t he di st r i ct cour t

r ul ed t hat Dunn, r el yi ng on hi s mi st aken t heor y that t he

r eassi gnment of hi s dut i es t o an empl oyee under 40 coul d i t sel f

est abl i sh a pr i ma f aci e case of age di scr i mi nat i on, had not come

f or war d wi t h addi t i onal evi dence on t hat poi nt , i . e. , t hat hi s

l ayof f occur r ed i n ci r cumst ances t hat woul d r ai se an i nf er ence of

unl awf ul di scr i mi nat i on. We need not deci de whet her t hat r ul i ng

was cor r ect . Agai n, we may af f i r m on any basi s suppor t ed by t he

r ecor d. See Bost on Pr op. Exch. Tr ansf er Co. , 720 F. 3d at 10.

- 16-


17/26

Because, i n t r yi ng t o demonst r at e pr et ext t o t he di st r i ct cour t ,

Dunn rel i ed on t he same evi dence he used t o t r y t o make a pr i ma

f aci e case, we can si mpl y assess whether t hat evi dence demonst r ates

a genui ne i ssue of pr etext wi t hout assessi ng whether t he same

evi dence demonst r at es a pr i ma f aci e case. Cf . Lewi s, 321 F. 3d at

216- 17 ( r ej ect i ng t he ar gument t hat pl ai nt i f f had shown a pr i ma

f aci e case of a di scr i mi nat or y l ayof f by showi ng t he reassi gnment

of hi s dut i es t o nonpr ot ect ed empl oyees, t hen pr oceedi ng t o rul e

t hat , even had he made out a pr i ma f aci e case, t he recor d l acked

evi dence t hat t he empl oyer s expl anat i on f or t he l ayof f was a

pr et ext f or di scr i mi nat i on) . Her e, t he r ecor d i s devoi d of

evi dence that BU s s t at ed r easons f or l ayi ng of f Dunn ar e pr et ext

f or di scr i mi nat i ng agai nst hi m due t o hi s age.

To st ar t wi t h, BU has ar t i cul at ed l egi t i mat e r easons,

wi t h suppor t i n t he r ecor d, bot h f or el i mi nat i ng Dunn s j ob, as i t s

dut i es wer e consol i dated wi t h t hose of Beckman s t o cr eat e t he

manager of deskt op ser vi ces posi t i on, and f or awar di ng t hat

posi t i on t o Beckman, r at her t han t o Dunn. As Gi anoul i s expl ai ned

i n pr oposi ng t hese changes, t he i ncr easi ng i nt egr at i on of t he f i el d

and cent r al suppor t di vi si ons of t he desktop ser vi ces gr oup cal l ed

f or t hei r consol i dat i on under a si ngl e manager . See Al var ado-

Sant os v. Dep t of Heal t h of P. R. , 619 F. 3d 126, 132 ( 1st Ci r .

2010) ( r ecogni zi ng t hat "gr eat er uni f or mi t y and ef f i ci ency" are

l egi t i mat e r easons f or consol i dat i ng manager i al r esponsi bi l i t i es) .

- 17-


18/26

Gi anoul i s al so expl ai ned t hat t he deskt op servi ces j ob shoul d go t o

Beckman i n l i ght of her "hi st or y and per f or mance of act i vel y

managi ng a suppor t group" and "knowl edge of ser vi ce management

syst ems. " Those r easons ar e al so f aci al l y l egi t i mat e. See, e. g. ,

Sul l i van, 825 N. E. 2d at 538 ( r ul i ng t hat , i n deci di ng whi ch

empl oyees t o l ay of f , an empl oyer can "determi ne whi ch of [ t hem]

woul d best meet i t s ongoi ng busi ness needs, " i ncl udi ng by

consi der i ng t hei r " par t i cul ar exper t i se") .

The quest i on becomes, t hen, whet her t he r ecor d cont ai ns

"' evi dence suf f i ci ent t o suppor t a j ur y ver di ct t hat i t was mor e

l i kel y than not t hat t he[ se] ar t i cul at ed r eason[ s] [ wer e] a pr et ext

f or unl awf ul di scr i mi nat i on. ' " Woodwar d, 714 F. 3d at 638 ( quot i ng

Mat t hews v. Ocean Spr ay Cr anberr i es, I nc. , 686 N. E. 2d 1303, 1309

( Mass. 1997) ( f ur t her quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ) . I n t he di st r i ct

cour t , Dunn argued t hat he had demonst r ated a genui ne i ssue as t o

pr et ext on t hr ee gr ounds: ( 1) Beckman s al l eged l ack of

qual i f i cat i ons f or t he manager of deskt op ser vi ces j ob; ( 2) t he

"devi at [ i on] f r om t he st andar d appl i cat i on of Uni ver si t y hi r i ng

pol i ci es and pr ocedur es" i n awar di ng t hat j ob t o Beckman; and ( 3)

Gi anoul i s s st at ement t o Dunn, i n Apr i l 2010, t hat Gi anoul i s was

"r eal l y l ooki ng f or a younger per son" f or t he posi t i on of ser vi ce

desk manager . For t he r easons set f or t h bel ow, we r ej ect t hese

ar guments.

- 18-


19/26

Fi r st , Dunn asser t s t hat "Beckman s cr edent i al s wer e not

even r emotel y what was qual i f i ed" f or t he manager of deskt op

ser vi ces j ob cr eat ed as a r esul t of t he consol i dat i on. Dunn s onl y

r ecor d suppor t f or t hi s asser t i on, however , i s t he f act t hat ,

pr evi ousl y, "Beckman wor ked i n t he I T Hel p Cent er as a br eak- f i x

t echni cal servi ces manager doi ng t he same t ype of basi c ' br eak- f i x'

hardware repai r work t hat Dunn had per f ormed upon hi s gr aduat i on

f r om col l ege. " Thi s ar gument , however , f ocuses on Beckman s

r esponsi bi l i t i es f or BU when she f i r st st ar t ed wor ki ng t her e- - upon,

and even pr i or t o, her gr aduat i on f r om col l ege3- - t o t he excl usi on

of t he addi t i onal r esponsi bi l i t i es she t ook on as she was pr omot ed

t o manager of t echni cal servi ces, i n 2006, and manager of deskt op

ser vi ces- cent r al suppor t , i n Febr uar y 2010.

Moreover , whi l e per f ormi ng t hose j obs, Beckman devel oped

t he "hi st ory and per f ormance of act i vel y managi ng a support gr oup"

and "knowl edge of ser vi ce management syst ems, " i ncl udi ng t i cket i ng

syst ems, t hat Gi anoul i s, i n recommendi ng Beckman t o be manager of

3

Dunn deni gr ates t he j obs t hat Beckman hel d pr i or t o worki ngat BU as "a wai t r ess at a count r y cl ub, a cl er k i n a l i quor st or e,and as a devel opment associ at e at [ her col l ege] seeki ng donat i onsf r om al umni . " We f ai l t o see how t he j obs t hat Beckman hel d pr i ort o wor ki ng at BU ( when, agai n, she was st i l l i n col l ege) cast doubt

on her qual i f i cat i ons t o assume the rol e of desktop ser vi cesmanager some ei ght year s l ater . Cf . Somers v. Conver ged Access,I nc. , 911 N. E. 2d 739, 752 ( Mass. 2009) ( r easoni ng t hat di f f er encesi n empl oyee s col l ege exper i ences ar e i nsuf f i ci ent t o est abl i shdi f f er ences i n t hei r qual i f i cat i ons "when many year s have passedsi nce thei r gr aduat i on and each had subst ant i al wor k exper i ence" i nt he r el evant f i el d) .

- 19-


20/26

desktop ser vi ces, had i dent i f i ed as i mpor t ant t o t he posi t i on. 4

I ndeed, as Gi anoul i s l at er expl ai ned, Beckman "was al r eady doi ng

t he r ol e" of deskt op servi ces manager dur i ng her st i nt as cent r al

support manager , where she "pr ovi ded deskt op support t o st udent s,

st af f and f acul t y . . . i n a hi gh vol ume envi r onment . " Dunn, i n

hi s r ol e as f i el d suppor t manager , had been pr ovi di ng t hose

servi ces t o a mor e l i mi t ed cl i ent base and, i n any event , had

speci f i cal l y t ol d Gi anoul i s t hat "he wasn t i nt er est ed i n deskt op

suppor t . " 5

Based on t hese undi sput ed f act s, no r easonabl e j ur y coul d

f i nd, as Dunn ur ges, t hat "t he st ar k di spar i t y i n [ hi s] credent i al s

and Beckman s cr edent i al s was so mani f est t hat t he onl y way Beckman

coul d have been sel ect ed f or t he [manager of deskt op servi ces] j ob

was i f age pl ayed an i mper mi ssi bl e r ol e. " As t hi s cour t has

4

Dunn asser t s t hat Beckman s " use of a t i cket i ng syst em wasl i mi t ed t o basi c t r acki ng of or der s . . . and not a sophi st i cat edent er pr i se- l evel , l ar ge scal e I T servi ce management model . " Butt hat asser t i on f i nds no suppor t i n t he r ecor d. Dunn r el i es sol el yupon t he deposi t i on t est i mony of Rosman ( hi s f ormer boss i n t hedi st r i but ed comput i ng gr oup) as t o t he t ype of t i cket i ng systemt hat Rosman "woul d t hi nk" or " i magi ne" was i n use i n t he BUcomput er st or e dur i ng Beckman s t i me t her e. Specul at i on, ofcour se, i s of no use on summary j udgment , see, e. g. , Ri ver a Col nv. Mi l l s, 635 F. 3d 9, 12 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) , and, i n any event ,Rosman s t est i mony- - l i ke Dunn s argument i n gener al - - speaks onl y toBeckman s t i me at t he comput er st ore.

5

Dunn says i n hi s r epl y br i ef t hat he "di sput es" havi ng sai dt hat , but does not poi nt t o anyt hi ng of evi dent i ar y qual i t y ( e. g. ,hi s own t est i mony denyi ng Gi anoul i s s account ) . " [ A] par t y may notgenerate a t r i al - wort hy di sput e at summary j udgment merel y bypr esent i ng unsubst ant i at ed al l egat i ons i n i t s memor anda. " Ni evesv. Uni v. of P. R. , 7 F. 3d 270, 280 ( 1st Ci r . 1993) .

- 20-


21/26

i nst r uct ed, a pl ai nt i f f cannot make pr et ext a t r i al wor t hy i ssue by

"essent i al l y r el yi ng on hi s per sonal bel i ef t hat he was mor e

qual i f i ed" f or a j ob t hat hi s empl oyer gave t o someone out si de of

t he pr ot ect ed cl ass. Vega- Col on v. Wyet h Phar ms. , 625 F. 3d 22, 28

( 1st Ci r . 2010) ( ci t i ng Shor et t e v. Ri t e Ai d of Me. , I nc. , 155 F. 3d

8, 15 ( 1st Ci r . 1998) ) ; see al so Somer s, 911 N. E. 2d at 752 ( r ul i ng

t hat pl ai nt i f f coul d not demonst r at e pr et ext f or t he def endant s

hi r i ng deci si on si mpl y by "poi nt i ng t o hi s r esume and cl ai mi ng t hat

he had si mi l ar exper i ence" t o t he nonpr otect ed empl oyee who was

hi r ed) .

Second, Dunn r el i es on t he f act t hat "Schr oeder and

Gi anoul i s devi at ed f r om t he st andar d appl i cat i on of Uni ver si t y

hi r i ng pol i ci es and pr ocedur es" i n sel ect i ng Beckman t o be the

manager of deskt op ser vi ces. As Dunn poi nt s out , t hi s cour t has

r ecogni zed t hat "[ d] evi at i on f r om est abl i shed pol i cy or pr act i ce

may be evi dence of pr etext . " Br ennan v. GTE Gov t Sys. Corp. , 150

F. 3d 21, 29 ( 1st Ci r . 1998) ( appl yi ng bot h f eder al and

Massachuset t s age di scr i mi nat i on l aw) .

So f ar as we can t el l , however , t he onl y "devi at i on f r om

est abl i shed pol i cy" t hat happened i n t hi s case was t hat t he j ob

descr i pt i on f or t he manager of deskt op servi ces posi t i on was never

post ed i n t he uni ver si t y j ob l i st i ngs. 6 And we si mpl y cannot see

6

Dunn al so emphasi zes t hat Schr oeder and Gi anoul i s di d not" r evi ew any resumes" or "conduct any i nt er vi ews, " but he poi nt s t onot hi ng i n t he recor d suggest i ng t hat BU had any pol i cy i mposi ng

- 21-


22/26

any l ogi cal connect i on bet ween t hat omi ssi on and t he quest i on

bef or e us, i . e. , whet her a r at i onal j ur y coul d f i nd t hat BU s

st at ed r easons f or gi vi ng the j ob to Beckman rat her t han t o Dunn

ar e i n f act pr et ext f or di scr i mi nat i ng agai nst Dunn on account of

hi s age. Cf . Vega- Col on, 625 F. 3d at 28 ( observi ng t hat t he " i nner

wor ki ngs" of def endant s hi r i ng pr ocess " ar e not r el evant , so l ong

as [ pl ai nt i f f s] st at us was not a mot i vat i ng or subst ant i al f actor

i n [ t he] deci si on not t o hi r e hi m") .

Dunn of f er s onl y t hat "a r easonabl e j ur y coul d i nf er t hat

[ hi s] super vi sor s di d not f ol l ow t hr ough wi t h est abl i shed hi r i ng

pr ocedures because t hey knew t hat Beckman woul d not be qual i f i ed

f or t he j ob. " I nsof ar as t hi s asser t i on does not si mpl y r ehash

Dunn s at t ack on Beckman s qual i f i cat i ons, i t f ai l s t o expl ai n how

f ol l owi ng "est abl i shed hi r i ng pr ocedur es" woul d have t hwar t ed t he

pl an t o gi ve t he manager of deskt op ser vi ces j ob t o Beckman.

I ndeed, t he onl y recor d evi dence on t hi s poi nt i s t hat Gi anoul i s

shar ed t hat pl an wi t h a r epr esent at i ve f r omt he uni ver si t y s human

r esour ces depar t ment , who voi ced "no concerns" wi t h i t . Mor e

i mpor t ant l y, we f ai l t o see how an at t empt t o ci r cumvent a j ob

post i ng pr ocedur e i n or der t o hi r e a supposedl y l ess qual i f i ed

per son suggest s agei st mot i vat i ons, i n any event . We ar e l ef t ,

t hen, wi t h t he sor t of "cr i t i ci sms of [ an empl oyer s] deci si on

t hose r equi r ement s, part i cul ar l y when gi vi ng a new j ob t o someonewho was al r eady worki ng t her e.

- 22-


23/26

maki ng pr ocess" at t endant t o a r educt i on- i n- f or ce t hat "f ai l t o

r eveal any hi dden ani mus" as a mat t er of Massachuset t s l aw.

Sul l i van, 825 N. E. 2d at 542.

Fi nal l y, Dunn r el i es on "agei st st at ement s by Dunn s

super vi sor s f r omwhi ch a reasonabl e j ur y coul d concl ude that [ hi s]

age pl ayed a r ol e i n hi s t er mi nat i on. " I n suppor t of t hi s

argument , Dunn asser t s t hat "Schr oeder and Gi anoul i s want ed t o

pr oj ect a ' new' yout hf ul i mage f r om what t hey vi ewed as t he

' cl i ent - f aci ng' por t i ons of t he I T Hel p Cent er , and t o t hem[ Dunn]

was pur por t edl y ' r esi st ant ' t o t echnol ogi cal change, not

suf f i ci ent l y f or war d- l ooki ng, and want ed t o j ust ' r ecreat e' t he

past . " The pl aces i n t he r ecor d t hat Dunn ci t es i n suppor t of t hi s

asser t i on, however , do not suppor t much of i t - - t hey cont ai n not hi ng

t hat coul d be const r ued as an expr essi on, or even a bet r ayal , of

any desi r e t o pr oj ect a "new, yout hf ul i mage, " as t o "cl i ent - f aci ng

por t i ons of t he I T Hel p Cent er " or ot her wi se.

I t was onl y i n expl ai ni ng why i nt r oduci ng a t i cket i ng

syst em "was a r eal uphi l l bat t l e f or [ Dunn] and hi s t eam" t hat

Gi anoul i s ci t ed "[ r ] esi st ance t o change . . . . [ T] hey had been

doi ng t hi ngs a l ong t i me al ong t he way wi t hout a t i cket i ng syst em. "

And i t was onl y i n descr i bi ng hi s r eact i on t o Dunn s pr oposal f or

r eor gani zi ng t he depar t ment t hat Gi anoul i s t est i f i ed t hat Dunn

"want ed t o r ecr eat e t he past . He want ed t o go back t o t he overhead

and t he st r uct ur e t hat we had" ( i n r esponse t o whi ch, Gi anoul i s

- 23-


24/26

r ecal l ed, he had " t ol d [ Dunn] t o st op f ocusi ng on t he past . . . .

[ T] hi s i s a t i me of change, you ve got t o move f or war d") .

Under Massachuset t s l aw, such " [ r ] emar ks t hat ar e

f aci al l y ambi guous and may r ef l ect manager i al concer ns r egar di ng an

empl oyee who decl i nes t o adapt t o changed busi ness pr act i ces,

r at her t han [ t he manager s] pr ef er ence f or more yout hf ul wor ker s, "

cannot pr ovi de t he evi dent i ar y f uel f or an age di scr i mi nat i on

cl ai m. Sul l i van, 825 N. E. 2d at 536- 37 n. 24; see al so Thomas v.

Sear s, Roebuck & Co. , 144 F. 3d 31, 33- 34 & n. 1 ( 1st Ci r . 1998)

( r ul i ng t hat super vi sor s comment s t hat t he pl ai nt i f f "had been

around t oo l ong" and "wasn t abl e t o change, " made i n r esponse t o

hi s " out spoken . . . di sagr eement wi t h [ def endant s] change i n

busi ness pol i cy, " wer e not "a coded al l usi on cl oaki ng age

di scr i mi nat i on" and thus made "no showi ng that " t he def endant s

st at ed r eason f or t er mi nat i ng t he pl ai nt i f f dur i ng a r est r uct ur i ng

was pr etext ual under Massachuset t s l aw) .

Dunn al so heavi l y rel i es on hi s own t est i mony that

Gi anoul i s, whi l e di scussi ng t he cr eat i on of a new "ser vi ce desk

manager " posi t i on i n Apr i l 2010, sai d "he [ was] r eal l y l ooki ng f or

a younger per son i n t hat r ol e. " Thi s comment al so does not suf f i ce

t o demonst r ate a genui ne i ssue as t o whether BU s s t ated r easons

f or r eassi gni ng t he dut i es of Dunn s j ob t o Beckman as t he new

manager of desktop ser vi ces- - a posi t i on di f f er ent f r omt he ser vi ce

- 24-


25/26

desk manager j ob t hat Gi anoul i s was di scussi ng wi t h Dunn7- - ar e mer e

pr et ext f or age di scr i mi nat i on.

As t hi s cour t has expl ai ned, " [ w] hi l e evi dence of age-

r el ated comment s may be suf f i ci ent t o support an i nf erence of

pr et ext and di scr i mi nat or y ani mus" behi nd a pl ai nt i f f s

t er mi nat i on, t hat i nf er ence does not f ol l ow wher e t he pl ai nt i f f

" f ai l [ s] t o adduce suf f i ci ent evi dence t hat t he r emar ks wer e bot h

t empor al l y and causal l y r el at ed t o [ t he def endant s] deci si on t o

di schar ge hi m. " Mel endez v. Aut oger mana, I nc. , 622 F. 3d 46, 54

( 1st Ci r . 2010) ( emphasi s added) . Her e, al t hough Gi anoul i s st at ed

hi s pr ef er ence f or "a younger per son" f or t he ser vi ce desk manager

j ob j ust a f ew weeks bef or e maki ng t he deci si on t o el i mi nate Dunn s

posi t i on, Dunn has not poi nt ed to any evi dence suggest i ng that

Gi anoul i s al so pr ef er r ed a "younger per son" f or t he deskt op

ser vi ces manager posi t i on t hat he l ater awarded t o Beckman, or even

t hat he pr ef er r ed younger wor ker s gener al l y.

To t he cont r ar y, i t i s undi sput ed t hat , i n car r yi ng out

t he May 2010 r eor gani zat i on, Gi anoul i s pr omoted t hr ee empl oyees i n

t hei r 40s, and r etai ned others who were 56 and 60 years ol d; Dunn

7

Asi de f r om what appear s t o be an or gani zat i onal char t , whi chi s r epr oduced i n pr i nt t o smal l t o r ead, Dunn does not poi nt t o

anyt hi ng i n t he r ecor d suppor t i ng hi s asser t i on t hat t heseposi t i ons "are compar abl e i n t er ms of seni or i t y. " To t he cont r ar y,as not ed above, Dunn hi msel f t est i f i ed t hat t he servi ce deskmanager posi t i on was at a " l esser gr ade [ and] pay" t han t he j ob hehel d pr i or t o hi s di schar ge- - whi ch, of cour se, was combi ned wi t hBeckman s t hen- exi st i ng j ob t o cr eat e t he manager of deskt opser vi ces posi t i on.

- 25-


26/26

was t he onl y empl oyee over 40 who suf f ered any adverse consequences

i n t he 2010 r eor gani zat i on. 8 So no r at i onal t r i er of f act coul d

t ake Gi anoul i s s s t at ement t hat he was " l ooki ng f or someone

younger " f or t he ser vi ce desk manager posi t i on i n Apr i l 2010 as an

i ndi cat i on t hat hi s st at ed r easons f or subsequent l y r eassi gni ng

Dunn s dut i es t o Beckman and t er mi nat i ng hi m wer e pr et ext f or

di scr i mi nat i ng agai nst Dunn because he was ol der t han 40- - when, as

par t of t he same reor gani zat i on, al l ot her empl oyees age 40 or

ol der were ei t her r etai ned or pr omoted. See Tor r ech- Hernandez v.

Gen. El ec. Co. , 519 F. 3d 41, 55- 56 & n. 11 ( 1st Ci r . 2008)

( r ej ect i ng pl ai nt i f f s ar gument t hat hi s super vi sor s comment

r ef l ect i ng a negat i ve " f eel i ng t owar d ol der empl oyees i n gener al "

creat ed a t r i abl e i ssue as t o pr et ext , i n l i ght of super vi sor s

pr omot i on of ot her ol der empl oyees t o si mi l ar posi t i ons) .

IV.

For t he f or egoi ng r easons, we affirm t he di s tr i ct court s

ent r y of summar y j udgment f or BU.

8

Dunn asser t s t hat " [ a] l l of t he new deskt op servi ces gr oupempl oyee hi r es were under t he age of 40, " ci t i ng t o what appear s t obe a spr eadsheet l i st i ng t he names, bi r t h year s, dat es of hi r e, andposi t i ons of empl oyees i n t hat gr oup as of an unspeci f i ed t i me.

Whi l e t hi s exhi bi t i ndeed shows t hat al l empl oyees hi r ed i nt o t hegr oup si nce Mar ch 2009 wer e under 40, al l of t hem wer e hi r ed i nt onon- manager i al posi t i ons, and, mor eover , Dunn poi nt s t o no evi dencesuggest i ng t hat anyone 40 or ol der even appl i ed f or any of t hosej obs. By i t sel f , t hen ( whi ch i s how Dunn has present ed i t ) , t hel i st f ai l s t o pr ovi de any suppor t f or Dunn s age di scr i mi nat i oncl ai m. See Woodward, 714 F. 3d at 639- 40

- 26-

dunn v. trustees of boston university, 1st cir. (2014)

Documents