# Ned WILKINS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. the EATON CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant

> Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 13, 1986 · 790 F.2d 515

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9474825

## Case

- **Full name:** 40 Fair empl.prac.cas. 1349, 40 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 36,221 Ned Wilkins v. the Eaton Corporation
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- **Decided:** May 13, 1986
- **Citations:** 790 F.2d 515; 40 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1349; 40 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 36,221; 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 25084
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Engel
- **Judges:** Engel, Contie, Mil-Burn
- **Cited by:** 103 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/9474825

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding that a pilot’s insubordination did not mean he was unqualified: “[a]lthough Wilkins’ refusal to fly may serve as a legitimate reason for dismissal, we do not believe that speaks to his ability to fly an airplane”
- holding that the plaintiff was replaced when another employee was promoted from part-time to full-time and his new position required him to perform duties for which he had not previously been responsible
- stating that “the fact finder may not focus on the soundness of the employer’s business judgment”

## Opinion text

ENGEL, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I concur in order to register my continuing uncertainty whether a prima facie case of age discrimination is made out by application of the four-step rule borrowed from McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 , 93 S.Ct. 1817 , 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). The majority opinion here, as did the opinion in Blackwell v. Sun Electric Corp., 696 F.2d 1176, 1179 (6th Cir.1983), continues to recognize the logic which I first expressed in Laugesen v. Anaconda Co., 510 F.2d 307, 312-13 (6th Cir.1975). The majority holds, however, that a prima facie case sufficient to avoid a directed verdict is made out by the plaintiff simply by demonstrating that he (1) was a member of the protected class; (2) was discharged; (3) was qualified for the position; and (4) was replaced by a younger person. Ultimately, I believe this bare bones application of the McDonnell Douglas formula will in fact create the dangers discussed in Blackwell, 696 F.2d at 1179 , and other like cases.
In my opinion, the facts here are much closer to those which, in Sahadi v. Reyn *524 olds Chemical, 636 F.2d 1116 (6th Cir.1980), led Judge Guy in the district court and our court on appeal to conclude that a prima facie case had not been made out even though it was arguable that a fifty-one year old employee had been laid off when his job was combined into the duties of a younger employee. The only arguable basis here for Mr. Wilkins’ claim that he made out a prima facie case would be found, in my opinion, by his effort to introduce a graph showing that the average age of active pilots over a period of several years had declined. However, I do not understand this to be a pattern and practice suit and I do not believe that the evidence of those graphs was sufficient to add that extra ingredient of discrimination which I believe should be required in disparate treatment age cases and which would enable the court to point to evidence that the action complained of was “because of” the employee’s age. At the same time, I recognize that the majority’s decision is probably consistent with Blackwell , and if we are to conclude that a prima facie case was made out, at least to the extent that it might have resisted a motion for directed verdict, then I fully agree with the remainder of Judge Contie’s opinion and, of course, with its result.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9474825. Public record. Not legal advice.