## Facts

- Rebecca Howell worked for Raymours Furniture Company, Inc. (Raymours) for about 12 years as a visual merchandiser responsible for styling and arranging furniture showrooms.
- Howell was over age 40 and had evidence of strong performance evaluations before she began reporting to a new store manager, Lee Soto.
- After Soto became her manager, Howell claimed Soto treated her with unusual coldness: he rarely spoke with her, avoided eye contact, and sometimes walked away while she was speaking.
- Howell contrasted Soto’s treatment of her with his friendly, joking interactions with a much younger coworker, Jennifer Conklin (age 28).
- Within a few months of working with Howell, Soto recommended that Raymours terminate Howell, asserting Howell’s work performance was poor.
- Raymours terminated Howell.
- Despite having no training or experience as a visual merchandiser, Conklin was selected at Soto’s urging to fill Howell’s role.
- Howell sued Raymours under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), alleging she was fired because of her age.
- Raymours moved for summary judgment, relying on evidence and testimony that Howell was discharged for performance-related reasons.
- Howell opposed summary judgment with evidence that her performance had been viewed as exemplary before Soto arrived and that Soto treated her differently than Conklin, a substantially younger employee who was placed into Howell’s position.

## Issues

1. Whether Howell produced sufficient evidence to create a triable issue that Raymours terminated her because of age, in violation of the ADEA, rather than for poor performance.
2. Whether Howell’s evidence of prior strong performance, differential treatment by Soto, and replacement by a substantially younger employee permitted a reasonable jury to find Raymours’ stated performance rationale was a pretext for age discrimination.

## Decision

- The court denied Raymours’ motion for summary judgment.
- The court held that Howell produced enough evidence for a reasonable jury to infer discriminatory intent and to disbelieve Raymours’ asserted performance justification.
- The court concluded that evidence concerning Soto’s treatment of Howell compared to Conklin, the timing of the alleged performance concerns, and Conklin’s selection as Howell’s replacement created genuine disputes of material fact for trial.

## Legal Principles

- The ADEA bars an employer from discharging an employee because of the employee’s age (40 or older).
- ADEA disparate-treatment claims commonly proceed under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework when the plaintiff relies on circumstantial evidence.
- Under that framework, the plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case (including that she was at least 40, qualified, suffered an adverse action, and was replaced by or treated less favorably than a sufficiently younger person).
- The employer then must articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the termination; this is a burden of production, not proof.
- The plaintiff may defeat summary judgment by pointing to evidence from which a reasonable factfinder could (a) disbelieve the employer’s stated reason or (b) infer that age was a determinative cause of the discharge.
- Comparative evidence (different treatment of a much younger employee), a sudden change in performance assessments after a new supervisor arrives, and weak or contested support for a performance-based rationale can support an inference of pretext.
- On summary judgment, the court does not resolve credibility disputes and must view the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.

## Conclusion

Because Howell offered evidence that her work was viewed positively before Soto arrived, that Soto treated her markedly worse than a much younger employee, and that the younger employee was placed into Howell’s position despite lacking relevant experience, the court found a reasonable jury could view Raymours’ performance explanation as pretext and could find age discrimination under the ADEA, so summary judgment was denied.


Howell v. Raymours Furniture Co., 26 F. Supp. 3d 366 (2014)