## Facts

- Albert Cramer was 64 years old and had about 20 years of management experience before managing 7‑Eleven, Inc.’s technical-support operations.
- For about 10 years, Cramer worked as an independent contractor for 7‑Eleven; for the last nine years he served as the “War Room” manager.
- The War Room provided technical and organizational support for technicians installing and configuring hardware and software systems in 7‑Eleven stores.
- As War Room manager, Cramer led teams, managed project timelines, coordinated with other parties, and frequently brought in outside vendors to troubleshoot technical issues.
- Kevin Zvolanek, age 27, worked for an outside vendor and interacted with the War Room as a technical liaison on 7‑Eleven projects.
- In 2009, 7‑Eleven decided to outsource the War Room’s functions and negotiated with NEC Corporation of America (NEC) to provide a new solution called the Deployment Support Team (DST).
- NEC and 7‑Eleven agreed the DST should be more self-sufficient and more responsive than the War Room, with staff having stronger relevant technical skills so the team could solve more problems internally and reduce reliance on vendors.
- NEC’s project manager had prior experience working with both Cramer and Zvolanek during the 7‑Eleven relationship.
- NEC chose Zvolanek rather than Cramer to manage the DST.
- Cramer sued NEC (and RedRiver Systems, L.L.C.) under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), alleging age-based failure to hire.
- NEC sought summary judgment, stating it hired Zvolanek because he was qualified and did not hire Cramer because the project manager viewed Cramer as having an aggressive management style and as relying heavily on vendors—an approach NEC did not want for the DST.
- Cramer argued those reasons were pretextual, pointing to evidence that he had more management experience, different and more extensive technical credentials, and more direct experience with 7‑Eleven’s needs than Zvolanek.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants, and Cramer appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Cramer produced sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that NEC’s stated reasons for hiring Zvolanek and not hiring Cramer were a pretext for age discrimination under the ADEA.
2. Whether Cramer’s comparative-qualifications evidence showed he was so clearly better qualified than Zvolanek that a jury could infer unlawful discrimination from the hiring choice.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for NEC and RedRiver.
- The court assumed for purposes of analysis that Cramer could make a prima facie case and that NEC articulated legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its decision.
- The court held Cramer failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact that NEC’s stated reasons were false or that age was the determinative reason for the hiring decision.
- The court held Cramer’s qualifications showing did not meet the Fifth Circuit’s demanding standard for proving pretext through comparative qualifications.

## Legal Principles

- ADEA liability requires proof that age was the “but-for” cause of the challenged employment decision, not merely one motivating factor.
- When a plaintiff relies on circumstantial evidence, courts apply the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework: (1) plaintiff’s prima facie case; (2) employer’s legitimate, non-discriminatory reason; (3) plaintiff’s proof of pretext (and, in an ADEA case, that age was determinative).
- An employer may rely on business-related judgments about desired skills, team structure, and management approach; courts do not reweigh those judgments absent evidence of discriminatory motive.
- Subjective reasons such as “fit” or perceived management style can be legitimate if tied to job-related goals and not shown to be a cover for discrimination.
- To show pretext through comparative qualifications in the Fifth Circuit, the plaintiff must show he was “clearly better qualified” such that no reasonable decisionmaker, exercising impartial judgment, would have chosen the selected candidate over the plaintiff.
- Evidence that the plaintiff has more years of experience, or different credentials, does not by itself create a fact issue on pretext when the employer reasonably valued other job-related traits (such as hands-on technical skills and a plan to reduce vendor dependence).
- At summary judgment, conclusory allegations and disagreement with the employer’s evaluation are insufficient; the plaintiff must point to evidence that the stated reasons were false and that discrimination explains the decision.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment because NEC gave age-neutral reasons tied to its plan for a more self-sufficient DST, and Cramer’s proof—largely that he had more experience and credentials—did not show a stark qualifications gap or other evidence from which a jury could find the reasons were false and that NEC declined to hire him because of his age.


Cramer v. NEC Corporation of America, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 23316 (2012)