## Facts

- Barry Wilson worked for Blue Sky Casino, LLC d/b/a French Lick Resort and Casino as a Table Games Floor Supervisor beginning in 2006.
- Table Games Floor Supervisors reported to Table Games Shift Managers; the Director of Table Games (Mike Miller) oversaw the department.
- In June 2015, the casino posted an opening for a Table Games Shift Manager position; multiple internal candidates applied, including Wilson (age 55).
- After interviews, Miller’s initial preferred candidate was Michael Voegerl, who was also 55.
- Wilson’s wife worked as a table-games dealer; Voegerl was dating a dealer he would have supervised if promoted.
- Human resources advised Miller that a parent-company antinepotism policy barred employees from directly supervising family members or romantic partners; the policy had not been consistently enforced historically.
- Miller treated the antinepotism policy as disqualifying candidates with those conflicts (including Wilson and Voegerl), leaving a 35-year-old applicant as the only eligible candidate, who was promoted.
- Wilson sued under the ADEA, alleging the antinepotism rationale was a pretext for age discrimination.

## Issues

1. Whether Wilson produced sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find the employer’s antinepotism-based reason for not promoting him was pretext for intentional age discrimination under the ADEA.

## Decision

- The court granted the employer’s motion for summary judgment under Rule 56.
- The court held Wilson failed to create a genuine dispute that the stated reason (application of the antinepotism policy) was dishonest or that age was the real motive.
- Final judgment was entered for Blue Sky Casino, LLC, and the failure-to-promote claim was dismissed.

## Legal Principles

- Under the ADEA, a plaintiff opposing summary judgment must present evidence from which a reasonable factfinder could conclude the employer’s stated reason is a pretext and that age discrimination caused the adverse action.
- At the pretext stage, the focus is on whether the decisionmakers honestly believed the nondiscriminatory reason they gave, not whether the decision was optimal or the policy was consistently applied.
- Inconsistent enforcement of an internal policy, standing alone, does not establish pretext without evidence tying the inconsistency to age bias or showing the employer’s explanation is false.
- Evidence that the employer’s preferred candidate was within the plaintiff’s protected-age group can weaken an inference that age animus motivated the decision.

## Conclusion

The court entered summary judgment for the employer because Wilson offered no evidence that the antinepotism policy rationale was a cover for age bias, and the record supported that the decisionmakers honestly applied the policy even if it had been unevenly enforced in the past.


Wilson v. Blue Sky Casino, LLC, No. 4:16-cv-00070-SEB-TAB, 2017 WL 6729946 (S.D. Ind. Dec. 29, 2017)