# Norman E. Rowell v. BellSouth Corporation

> Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · December 20, 2005 · 433 F.3d 794

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9415963

## Case

- **Full name:** Norman E. ROWELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BELLSOUTH CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
- **Decided:** December 20, 2005
- **Citations:** 433 F.3d 794; 87 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 42,219; 97 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 131; 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 28082; 2005 WL 3470278
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Carnes
- **Judges:** Carnes, Pryor, Forrester
- **Cited by:** 140 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9415963

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that a choice between a severance benefit and possibly retaining employment was not a “take-it-or-leave-it situation” and that “an employee who accepts the severance package rather than wait to see if he can remain employed cannot claim that he was constructively disch…
- explaining that “[i]t is by now axiomatic that we cannot second-guess the business decisions of an employer,” and that the employer’s use of competency factors did not demonstrate intent to discriminate based on age
- observing that “courts have admitted statements of managers under Rule 801(d)(2)(D) where there is some evidence that the statements reflected some kind of participation in the employment decision or policy of the employer”
- holding that employee was not acting within scope of employment where there was no evidence that the declarant was involved in hiring process
- affirming a decision granting an employer’s motion for summary judgment and explaining that deposition testimony from plaintiff could only be considered if it could “be reduced to an admissible form” at trial

## Opinion text

CARNES, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the Court’s decision affirming the grant of summary judgment and join the part of its opinion explaining that Rowell failed to create a genuine issue of material fact that his ranking for reduction in force purposes was the result of age discrimination. The issue of whether Rowell’s resignation amounted to a constructive discharge so as to satisfy the adverse employment action requirement is oné that I would not reach, and I do not join in that alternative holding.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9415963. Public record. Not legal advice.