Even Assuming A Prejudicial Supervisor, Two Layers Of Bias-Free Analysis Defeats Plaintiff's "Cats-Paw" Theory Of Age Discrimination
MARTINO v. MCI COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, INC. (July 28, 2009)
.jpg)
MCI hired Guy Martino in 2005 at the age of 54. He was hired as a business solutions consultant and provided support to the company's sales force. Although he was not directly responsible for sales, he did receive commissions on the sales to which he was assigned. Martino was assigned to and received commissions for one blockbuster deal in mid-2005. Other than that one deal, however, Martino's performance was generally lacking. In fact, even the lead salesman on the large deal was quite critical of his individual contribution. MCI merged with Verizon in early 2006. As a result, Steve Rumstein, his group head, was asked to come up with a list of individuals least likely to be strong contributors in the future. Rumstein identified six employees, including Martino. He based his selection on geography, ability, credibility with sales staff and sales performance. With respect to ability, Rumstein focused on a new service being offered by Verizon with which Martino was not well-versed. The five employees on the list other than Martino ranged in age from 33 to 45. Rumstein submitted the list to Ed Franklin, his superior. Franklin decided to fire Martino for all the same reasons that led to his inclusion on the list. Martino brought an action under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The district court granted summary judgment to MCI. Martino appeals.
In their opinion, Judges Cudahy, Evans and Tinder affirmed. The Court noted that the sole evidence of age discrimination was Martino's allegations that his direct supervisor, Bob Gross, sometimes use "old-timer" to describe him. Under the direct method of proof, Martino relied on the cat's paw theory since Gross was not the decision maker. The Court rejected the theory: there was weak evidence of discriminatory intent to begin with, there were two layers of bias-free decisions, and Rumstein and Franklin both considered a host of legitimate factors. The Court concluded that Martino did not come close to the "singular influence" standard necessary to establish a cat's-paw case. With respect to the indirect method, the Court concluded that Martino failed with respect to two of the elements: that he met the company's performance expectations and that the company treated similarly situated employees under 40 more favorably. First, the record was replete with evidence of Martino's performance limitations. Second, a number of younger employees were let go along with Martino. Although the company did keep several employees under 40, the Court had no trouble concluding that they were not similarly situated.
