01-3505 Koski v. Standex International Corp.

Listen to this article

“Koski offers deposition testimony from other older employees who were terminated, demoted, or who felt ostracized at Spincraft in an effort to rebut all of Spincraft’s proffered reasons. These employees testified that various managers at Spincraft, not Schmitz specifically, have made discriminatory statements against older people and treated younger people more favorably. We agree with the district court that this testimony is not enough by itself to survive summary judgment. First, Koski offers no evidence that Schmitz, the manager that terminated him, ever showed any indication of age discrimination. Koski would have to show that the statements ‘reflect a propensity by the decisionmaker to evaluate employees based on illegal criteria.’ Venters v. City of Delphi, 123 F.3d 956, 973 (7th Cir. 1997). Second, most of the deposition testimony consists of vague statements about how the employees felt. The statement that younger people were generally treated more favorably than older people is simply not specific enough to use as evidence. Uhl, 121 F.3d at 1137. Perhaps realizing this, Koski also offered some evidence that he characterizes as statistical (although it is really just numerical evidence, not ‘statistical,’ because it does not apply any known statistical techniques). He notes that the majority of employees terminated after 1995 were over the age of 40 and that 10 of the 11 employees terminated were 39 or older. He further argues that the numbers do not reflect actual discrimination because many employees voluntarily retire after unfair treatment. Again, Koski does not provide specific information that the employees were either terminated or missed out on promotions because of their age. We are not saying that these statements and statistics are wholly irrelevant. Had he offered this information in conjunction with other evidence placing it in context, a factfinder would be entitled to draw any reasonable inferences it chose. … But Koski failed to offer the additional evidence that would permit this case to proceed to a jury.”

Affirmed.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Reynolds, J., Wood, J.