## Facts

- Judy F. Jones worked for the Oklahoma City Public Schools for decades, including approximately 15 years as an elementary principal, and was later promoted to Executive Director of Curriculum and Instruction.
- Jones received satisfactory or better performance evaluations and, during the relevant events, was 59 years old.
- After a change in leadership, multiple supervisors asked Jones about her retirement plans.
- The school district asserted it eliminated Jones’s executive director position as part of a budget-neutral reorganization and reassigned her to an elementary principal role.
- Evidence indicated the budget line for Jones’s former position remained funded despite the claimed elimination.
- Soon after Jones’s reassignment, the district created a new central-office position (Executive Director of Teaching and Learning) that was substantially similar to Jones’s former role and filled it with a younger individual (age 47).
- The reassignment reduced Jones’s organizational status and resulted in diminished benefits immediately, with reduced pay and benefits after the first year.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment on Jones’s ADEA disparate-treatment claim by requiring evidence beyond a prima facie case and proof of pretext (a “pretext plus” standard).
2. Whether Jones presented sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that the district’s stated reason (budget-neutral reorganization) was pretext for age discrimination.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held the district court improperly applied a “pretext plus” standard by concluding that, despite evidence of pretext, no reasonable juror could find age discrimination.
- The court concluded Jones’s prima facie case, combined with evidence permitting a finding of pretext, was sufficient to allow a jury to infer discrimination.

## Legal Principles

- ADEA disparate-treatment claims using the McDonnell Douglas framework may proceed to a jury where the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case and produces evidence that the employer’s stated reason is unworthy of belief.
- Courts may not require “pretext plus,” i.e., additional independent evidence of discriminatory animus beyond evidence supporting a finding that the employer’s justification is false.
- At summary judgment, courts must view the record in the light most favorable to the nonmovant and may not weigh credibility or resolve factual disputes reserved for the jury.

## Conclusion

The Tenth Circuit held that, in an ADEA case, a plaintiff who presents a prima facie case and evidence from which a jury could find the employer’s explanation pretextual generally is entitled to have a jury decide whether age discrimination occurred, and summary judgment was therefore improper.


Jones v. Okla. City Pub. Schs., 617 F.3d 1273 (10th Cir. 2010)