## Facts

- Charles Mitte worked for Manville Sales Corporation as a fiberglass insulation sales representative from 1962 until his termination in January 1986; he was 55 years old.
- In the early 1980s, Manville undertook cost-cutting measures, including reducing its sales force.
- Lonnie Morris, the district manager, supervised a district with three sales representatives: Mitte (55), Lorin Lichten (32), and Charles Hinton (41).
- Morris recommended eliminating one position and selecting Mitte for discharge; in doing so, Morris referenced Mitte’s age and contrasted him with Lichten as a “young aggressive” sales representative.
- The general sales manager, Robert Bruntrager, accepted Morris’s recommendation with little follow-up and terminated Mitte, reallocating his customers to the two remaining representatives.
- Plaintiffs offered evidence that Mitte had consistently outsold the younger representatives and sought to admit multiple age-related remarks by Morris and others reflecting preference for younger workers.
- The district court excluded several age-related remarks as “stray remarks” and/or under Federal Rule of Evidence 403.
- After investigation, the EEOC issued a letter of violation concluding Manville unlawfully discriminated based on age; the district court excluded the letter under Rule 403.
- The jury charge and interrogatories framed the question as whether Manville had a “general policy or practice” of age discrimination, and the jury returned a verdict for Manville.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court erred by excluding age-related remarks by a decision-maker offered to prove discriminatory intent in an ADEA discharge case.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 by excluding the EEOC’s letter of violation.
3. Whether the jury instructions and interrogatories misstated ADEA law by requiring a finding of a general policy or practice of discrimination rather than discrimination against the individual plaintiff.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded for a new trial.
- The district court erred in excluding several age-related remarks tied to the discharge decision and made by a supervisor involved in the decisional process.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the EEOC letter of violation under Rule 403.
- The jury instructions and interrogatories were erroneous and likely misled the jury by focusing on a general policy or practice instead of whether Mitte was terminated because of age.

## Legal Principles

- Age-related remarks can be admissible evidence of discriminatory intent when they relate to the protected class, are close in time to the challenged action, are made by an individual with authority over the decision, and relate to the decision at issue.
- Characterizing comments as “stray remarks” does not justify exclusion when the remarks bear directly on the employment decision and come from a key decision-maker.
- EEOC reasonable-cause or violation determinations may be relevant, but a trial court may exclude them under Rule 403 when the risk of unfair prejudice, jury confusion, or undue weight substantially outweighs probative value, especially if the document states ultimate legal conclusions.
- ADEA liability turns on whether the plaintiff was subjected to an adverse employment action “because of” age; the plaintiff need not prove a company-wide pattern or practice.
- Erroneous exclusion of central evidence and an incorrect jury charge affecting the governing standard can warrant reversal when they affect substantial rights and are not harmless.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit required a new trial because the jury was prevented from hearing probative age-based remarks from the supervisor who recommended the termination and because the jury was instructed to decide an improper “policy or practice” question rather than whether the plaintiff was discharged because of age; however, it upheld the exclusion of the EEOC’s violation letter as a permissible Rule 403 ruling.


Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm’n v. Manville Sales Corp., 27 F.3d 1089 (5th Cir. 1994)