Employment — age discrimination

Listen to this article

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7^th Circuit

Civil

Employment — age discrimination

Where the employer selectively enforced its policies, summary judgment was improperly granted in its favor on an employee’s age discrimination claim.

“We conclude that the selective enforcement of Macon Resources’s reporting policy, combined with the inconsistencies in distinguishing Baker from Cross, can support pretext. This pretext evidence could lead a jury reasonably to believe that age is the true reason that it fired Baker but retained the younger Cross after both violated the same company rule. See Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 147 (2000) (‘Proof that the defendant’s explanation is unworthy of credence is … probative of intentional discrimination, and it may be quite persuasive.’); Filar v. Bd. of Educ. of City of Chi., 526 F.3d 1054, 1064–65 (7th Cir. 2008) (‘Because the only salient difference between [the plaintiff] and the younger teachers was age, a jury could conclude that age motivated [the employer’s] decisions.’). Accordingly, the case must be tried.”

Reversed and Remanded.

13-3324 Baker v. Macon Resources, Inc.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, McCuskey, J., Per Curiam.