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

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386016_0012%3A0

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Prologue
- **Published:** January 1, 2005
- **Citation:** 546 U.S. 977

## Text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386016_0012%3A0. Public record. Not legal advice.