holding that statements “unrelated to the decisional process itself [cannot] suffice to satisfy the plaintiffs burden ... of demonstrating animus” (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted)
How later courts described this case
- holding that statements “unrelated to the decisional process itself [cannot] suffice to satisfy the plaintiffs burden ... of demonstrating animus” (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted)
- finding that the McDonnell Douglas framework applies to ADEA claims based on circumstantial evidence even after Gross’s rejection of the burden-shifting framework for claims of direct evidence
- explaining that “Gross overrules our ADEA precedent to the extent that cases applied Title VII’s burden-shifting framework if the plaintiff produced direct evidence of age discrimination.”
- requiring a plaintiff in a reduction-in-force case to adduce “additional - 15 - No. 11-3655 Beck v. Buckeye Pipeline Services Co. direct, circumstantial, or statistical evidence tending to indicate that the employer singled out the plaintiff for discharge for impermissible reasons” (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks omitted)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ROGERS, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the result, but would base affirmance on Geiger’s not having shown pretext, even assuming that Geiger had made out a prima facie case of age discrimination.