Background
Derrick McCoy, a Protective Services Officer at a Social Security office, was terminated by his employer Paragon Systems following an incident with an unruly customer. Paragon agreed to reinstate McCoy only if the Department of Homeland Security issued a favorable suitability determination. DHS issued an unfavorable determination, leading McCoy to sue for age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. The district court granted summary judgment for DHS, and McCoy appealed.
The court’s reasoning
The court assumed without deciding that DHS was a joint employer but found McCoy’s claim failed under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework and the holistic approach of Ortiz. McCoy could not show he met DHS’s legitimate expectations or that a similarly situated younger employee was treated more favorably. The court also rejected his attempt to use a comparator witness not disclosed during discovery. Regarding stray age-related remarks by a non-decision-maker, the court found they were insufficient to create an inference of discrimination without evidence that the remarks were a proximate cause of the adverse action.
Because the record contains no evidence that DHS’s suitability determination was made because of McCoy’s age, we affirm.
What it means going forward
The ruling reinforces that plaintiffs in age discrimination cases must provide concrete evidence of comparative treatment and cannot rely on stray remarks by non-decision-makers to survive summary judgment.