## Facts

- Greyhound reorganized after financial distress, including a 1990 strike and bankruptcy, and reduced staff to increase efficiency.
- Three Accounting Center employees in Des Moines, Iowa—William James Bialas (45), Edward D. Christensen (44), and Rollin M. Cate (41)—were terminated in early 1991 when their positions were eliminated during departmental consolidation and workforce reduction.
- Bialas managed charter revenue; due to declining charter work, his department was consolidated with statistics, and supervisor Suzanne Bubel selected Dennis Newton (30) to manage the combined unit, citing Newton’s broader familiarity and Bialas’s unfamiliarity with statistical duties, probationary status, and lowest performance evaluation among her managers.
- Christensen was senior director of sales accounts payable; senior director Paul Griffith eliminated a senior director position because reduced staffing decreased supervisory needs, and chose Joe Young to oversee consolidated departments, citing better managerial skills.
- Cate’s position was eliminated after significant cuts within his department; his performance evaluation was poor, and his duties were first assumed by a 43-year-old supervisor before later being handled by a younger employee.
- The plaintiffs alleged Greyhound used the reorganization as a pretext to replace older, higher-paid workers with younger, lower-paid workers, in violation of the ADEA and the Iowa Civil Rights Act.

## Issues

1. Whether the plaintiffs produced sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute that age was a determining factor in their terminations during a reduction in force.
2. Whether Greyhound’s stated reasons (restructuring, consolidation, and performance-based selections) were pretextual.
3. Whether age-related remarks by Greyhound personnel and the later performance of some duties by younger employees could support an inference of intentional age discrimination.

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Greyhound.
- The court held that, even assuming a prima facie case, Greyhound articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for each termination, and the plaintiffs failed to produce sufficient evidence of pretext or intentional age discrimination.
- The court treated alleged age-related comments as minimally probative because they were not tied to the decisional process and were made by individuals who did not make the termination decisions.
- The court found that the later reassignment of some duties to younger employees did not, by itself, show discriminatory intent in a reduction-in-force setting.

## Legal Principles

- ADEA claims supported by circumstantial evidence are analyzed under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework: prima facie case, employer’s legitimate reason, and plaintiff’s proof of pretext with age as the determining factor.
- In a reduction-in-force case, a plaintiff must produce evidence permitting a finding that the employer intended to discriminate in making the challenged decision; it is not enough to show that duties were redistributed or later performed by younger employees.
- Remarks unrelated to the termination decision and made by non-decisionmakers generally have limited evidentiary weight on discriminatory intent.
- To defeat summary judgment, the plaintiff must present evidence from which a reasonable factfinder could conclude the employer’s stated reasons are false and that age, rather than business restructuring or performance-based factors, determined the termination.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed judgment for Greyhound because the record supported business-driven consolidation and performance-based selections during a workforce reduction, and the plaintiffs’ evidence—stray remarks and later assignment of duties to younger workers—did not permit a reasonable inference that age determined their terminations.


Bialas v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 59 F.3d 759 (8th Cir. 1995)