Prologue — Stidham v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing, Inc.

au the

Supreme Court of the Anited States

DeporAn STIDHAM,

Petitioner,

¥.

MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING, INC.,

d/b/a 3M Company,

Respondent.

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United

States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Kent L. Brown Davip J. Moen

Counsel of Record Davip J. Moen, P.C.

KENT L. Brown, P.C. 613 East McCarty STREET

613 East McCarty Street — Jerrerson City, MO 65101

JEFFERSON City, MO 65101 (573) 636-5997

(573) 635-4971

Attorneys for Petitioner

Becker Gallagher Legal Publishing, Inc. 800.890.5001

1.

i

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

Does the Eighth Circuit decision conflict with the

decisions of other United States Courts of Appeal on the

issue of what is required to establish a prima facie case

under the ADEA?

. Did the Eighth Circuit inappropriately modify the burden

shifting framework announced by this Court in

McDonnell Douglas Corporation yv. Green, and

O’Connor y. Consolidated Coin Caterers Corp., and

thereby create a new legal standard for disparate treatment

cases?

li

PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING AND

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

The parties to the proceeding are set forth in the case

caption. Petitioner Stidham was the plaintiff in the District

Court and appellant in the Court of Appeals. Respondent

Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, d/b/a 3M Company,

is a public business corporation.

ili

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Questions Presented

Parties to the Proceeding

and Corporation Disclosure Statement

Table of Contents

Opinions Below

Statement of Jurisdiction

Statutory Provisions Involved

Statement of the Case

Reasons for Granting the Petition

I. Certiorari is warranted because the Eighth Circuit

decision conflicts with the decisions of other

United States Courts of Appeal on the issue of

what is required to establish a prima facie case

under the ADEA

. Certiorari is warranted because the Eighth Circuit

inappropriately modified the burden shifting

framework announced by this Court in McDonnell

Douglas Corporation v. Green, and O’Connor v.

Consolidated Coin Caterers Corp., and created a

new legal standard for disparate treatment cases

Conclusion

Appendix

Appendix A

April 21, 2005, Order Denying Petition for Rehearing and

for Rehearing En Banc from the Eighth Circuit Court of

February 25, 2005, Opinion from the Eighth Circuit

Court of Appeals

Appendi: C

November 24, 2003, Order from the United States District

Court for the Western District of Missouri Central

Division

Appendix D

November 26, 2003, Judgment in a Civil Case from the

United States District Court for the Western District of

Missouri Central Division

Appendix E

March 6, 2003, Excerpt from Defendant’s Answers to

Plaintiff's First Interrogatories, pages 4,9 and 10 . 2la

Appendix F

July 31, 2003, Excerpt from Plaintiff's Response and

Suggestions in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for

Summary Judgment, page 17

Appendix G

March 23, 2001, 3M Contribution and Development

Summary for Deborah Stidham ‘for the Review Period

from 01/01/2000 to 12/31/2000

Appendix H

, November 18, 2002, Excerpt from Deposition Testimony

of Larry C. Thomason, page 8

Appendix I

October 23, 2002, Excerpt from Deposition of Larry

Wall, pages 25, 26 and 35

Appendix J

March 6, 2001, Email from Larry Wall to Mike Potter re:

Salaried Reductions

Appendix K

April 29, 2003, Excerpt from Deposition of Deborah

Stidham, pages 9, 10, 26 and 150

Appendix L

May 14, 2003, Excerpt from Deposition of Bill Moore,

pages 50 and 51

Appendix M

June 5, 2003, Excerpt from Responses to Plaintiff's

Request for Admissions Directed to Defendant 3M, page

March 24, 2005, Appellant’s Petition for Panel

Rehearing, Tables A and B

vi

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases:

Allen v. Diebold, Inc.

33 F.3d 674 (6" Cir. 1994)

Anderson v. Consolidated Rail Corp.

297 F.3d 242 (3° Cir. 2002)

Armbruster v. Unisys Corp.

32 F.3d 768 (34 Cir. 1994)

Barnes v. GenCorp, Inc.

896 F.2d 1457 (8" Cir. 1990)

Bashara v. Blackhills Corporation

26 F.3d 820 (8" Cir. 1994)

Beaird v. Seagute Tech., Inc.

145 F.3d 1159 (10" Cir. 1998)

Benson v. Tocco, Inc.

113 F.3d 1203 (11" Cir. 1997)

Billet v. CIGNA Corp.

940 F.2d 812 (3° Cir. 1991)

-Branson vy. Price River Coal Co.

853 F.2d 768 (10" Cir. 1988)

Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co.

232 F.3d 1271 (9 Cir. 2000)

Vii

DiBiase v. SmithKline Beecham Corp.

48 F.3d 719 (3% Cir. 1995)

Duffy v. Wheeling Pittsburgh Steel Corp.

738 F.2d 1393 (3° Cir. 1984)

Fischer v. Pharmacia & Upjohn

225 F.3d 915 (8" Cir. 2000)

Furnco Construction Corporation v. Waters

438 U.S. 567 (1978)

Gallo v. Prudential Residential Services

22 F.3d 1219 (2° Cir. 1994)

Hanebrink v. Brown Shoe Co.

110 F.3d 644 (8" Cir. 1997)

Hardin v. Hussmann Corp.

45 F.3d 262 (8" Cir. 1995)

Healy v. New York Life Insurance Co.

860 F.2d 1209 (34 Cir. 1988)

Ingels v. Thiokol Corp.

42 F.3d 616 (10" Cir. 1994)

Krchnavy v. Limagrain Genetics Corp.

294 F.3d 871 (7" Cir. 2002)

Maresco v. Evans Chemetics, Div. of W.R. Grace Co.

964 F.2d 106 (2° Cir. 1992)

Marzano v. Computer Science Corp.

91 F.3d 497 (3° Cir. 1996)

Viii

Massarsky v. General Motors Corp.

706 F.2d 111 (N.J. 1983)

McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. Green

411 U.S. 792 (1973)

Mitchell v. Baldrige

759 F.2d 80 (D.C. 1985)

Mitchell v. USBI Company

186 F.3d 1352 (11" Cir. 1999)

O’Connor v. Consolidated Coin Caterers Corp.

517 U.S. 308 (1996)

Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc.

530 U.S. 133 (2000)

Ritter v. Hill ‘N Dale Farm, Inc.

231 F.3d 1039 (7 Cir. 2000)

Rowan v. Lockheed Martin

360 F.3d 544 (6" Cir. 2004)

St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks

509 U.S. 502 (1993)

Schuster v. Lucent Technologies, Inc.

327 F.3d 569 (7" Cir. 2003)

Showalter v. University of Pittsburgh Medical Center

190 F.3d 231 (3% Cir. 1999)

Smith y. City of Jackson, Miss.

125 S.Ct. 1536 (2005)

ix

Stone v. Autoliv ASP, Inc.

210 F.3d: 1132.10" Cir; 2000). -... 0. een es 14, 15

Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine

nr Ge: SOE CIs Ss oe eee 9,11, 14

’ Torre v. Casio, Inc.

APP SESS Ce. TOM oo ok es as 7

U.S. Postal Service Bd. of Governors y. Aikens

Or 0, Fe CU. ok a oS eee eee 9

Wards Cove Parking Co. vy. Atonio

Op AE. te ik ee eS ee ee eee 21

Watson v. Fort Worth Bank and Trust

OUT Sosa FEF Ree oe ee ee eS 22

Statutes:

eS OE a eae es l

ee ea ee eee ee L

Missouri Human Rights Act,

Ch. Zio Wee. DV. ee ee 5 oS AE RS l

l

OPINIONS BELOW

The February 25, 2005, Panel Opinion of the United

States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit is reported at

399 F.3d 935 (8" Cir. 2005) and reprinted at App. 2a. The

Panel affirmed the entry of judgment upon Respondent’s

motion for summary judgment.

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Eighth Circuit denied a timely filed petition for

rehearing on April 21, 2005. App. 1a. Petitioner invokes this

Court’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1).

‘STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

29 U.S.C. § 623(a) provides in pertinent part:

It shall be unlawful for an employer -

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or discharge any

individual or otherwise discriminate against

any individual with respect to his

compensation, terms, conditions or privileges

of employment, because of such individual’s

age.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Petitioner Stidham brought suit in the Western District

Court of Missouri, Central Division, alleging that her

termination violated the Age Discrimination in Employment

Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. § 623 and the Missouri Human

Rights Act, Chapter 213, Mo. Rev. Stat. (2000). App. 12a.

After discovery Respondent Minnesota Mining and

Manufacturing, Inc. (hereinafter “3M”) moved for summary

2

judgment. After briefing and oral argument, the District Court

granted 3M’s motion for summary judgment. The Eighth

Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the decision dismissing

Stidham’s claim, holding that she had not established a prima

facie case of age discrimination.

Stidham worked at the Columbia, Missouri, facility of the

3M Company beginning in August 1976. She was employed

in production as a machine operator from August 1976

through March 1979. In April 1980, Stidham was promoted

to management as a shift supervisor. She held a supervisory

or management position through the date of her termination.

App. 21a, 23a. In 2000, she was selected to serve within the

Plant Engineering Department in a new position called

“Environmental Administrator.” Stidham’s position with 3M

as Environmental Administrator was created to help address

the many state and federal regulations with respect to 3M’s

waste issues and to promote recycling. She was to extend the

recycling program with 3M in conjunction with 3M’s

Resource Recovery Group and she was charged with the

obligation to reduce the waste generated at the Columbia

facility. App. 24a - 31a.

No other employee at the 3M facility in Columbia,

Missouri, held Stidham’s job title or engaged in the same

duties. There is no dispute that Stidham performed her job

duties satisfactorily or that she had no problems with her

supervisor and her co-workers. App.-14a.

Stidham’s employee evaluation for the year 2000, was

electronically signed by Wall on March 22, 2001. As part of

that evaluation, Wall stated, “I believe the Environmental

Administrator role is a good fit for Debbie and 3M. There is

some vital work to be done here recycling waste and the

refrigerant coordination. Debbie has the skills to interface