Scribd
Upload
43 views3 pages

Hazel Davis v. Electrolux Corporation, 9 F.3d 1543, 4th Cir. (1993)

Hazel Davis sued her former employer Electrolux Corporation for age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) after being terminated at age 55. The district court granted summary judgment to Electrolux, finding that Davis did not establish a prima facie case of age discrimination. The appeals court affirmed, agreeing that Davis did not show she was meeting Electrolux's legitimate job expectations, as required to make a prima facie case. Electrolux provided evidence that Davis had received two written warnings for poor work performance and difficulty working with others prior to her termination. While Davis disputed some allegations, she did not deny having difficult relations with coworkers. The court determined whether the allegations against Davis were true was not

Uploaded by

Scribd Government Docs
Copyright
© Public Domain
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
43 views3 pages

Hazel Davis v. Electrolux Corporation, 9 F.3d 1543, 4th Cir. (1993)

Hazel Davis sued her former employer Electrolux Corporation for age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) after being terminated at age 55. The district court granted summary judgment to Electrolux, finding that Davis did not establish a prima facie case of age discrimination. The appeals court affirmed, agreeing that Davis did not show she was meeting Electrolux's legitimate job expectations, as required to make a prima facie case. Electrolux provided evidence that Davis had received two written warnings for poor work performance and difficulty working with others prior to her termination. While Davis disputed some allegations, she did not deny having difficult relations with coworkers. The court determined whether the allegations against Davis were true was not

Uploaded by

Scribd Government Docs
Copyright
© Public Domain
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

9 F.

3d 1543

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of


unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing
res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires
service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth
Circuit.
Hazel DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ELECTROLUX CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 92-1297.

United States Court of Appeals,


Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: December 22, 1992.
Decided: November 15, 1993.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of
Virginia, at Abingdon.
Robert W. Detrick, Bristol, Virginia, for Appellant.
James P. Jones, M. Jill Morgan, Penn, Stuart, Eskridge & Jones,
Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.
W.D.Va.
AFFIRMED.
Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

OPINION
1

Hazel Davis appeals from the district court's order granting summary judgment
to Electrolux Corporation, her former employer, on her claim alleging age

discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of


1967 (ADEA), 29 U.S.C.A. 621-634 (West 1985 & Supp. 1992). Davis was
hired by Electrolux in 1986 to work as a loader/unloader at its Bristol, Virginia,
plant. Electrolux terminated Davis's employment in March 1989 for "inability
to work with fellow employees and creating unnecessary disturbances in the
work area." At the time she was terminated, Davis was 55 years old. She
brought this action claiming that Electrolux discriminated against her due to her
age. The district court granted Electrolux's motion for summary judgment,
finding that Davis failed to make out a prima facie case of age discrimination
and that, in any event, Electrolux's proffered reason for her discharge was
unrefuted. Davis appeals.
2

We review grants of summary judgment de novo. Felty v. Graves-Humphreys


Co., 818 F.2d 1126 (4th Cir. 1987). Summary judgment is appropriate where
there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. When making the summary judgment
determination, the facts and all reasonable inferences must be viewed in the
light most favorable to the nonmovant. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477
U.S. 242, 255 (1986).

To establish a prima facie case of age discrimination, Davis would have to


show that (1) she is in the protected age group (defined as an individual at least
forty years old, 29 U.S.C. 631(a) (West Supp. 1992)); (2) that she was
discharged; (3) that at the time of the discharge, she was performing her job at a
level that met her employer's legitimate expectations; and (4) that persons
outside the protected age class were retained in the same position or that there
was some other evidence that the employer did not treat age neutrally in
deciding to dismiss her. Herold v. Hajoca Corp., 864 F.2d 317, 319 (4th Cir.
1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1107 (1989). We agree with the district court that
Davis did not sustain her burden to show that she was performing her job at a
level that met Electrolux's legitimate expectations.

Electrolux submitted an affidavit from Davis's supervisor which states that he


provided Davis with two written warnings concerning her poor work
performance prior to her termination. Davis admitted receiving one of those
warnings but denied the truth of the allegations. Moreover, she did not dispute
the fact that her relations with fellow employees were difficult, protesting only
that the complaints of fellow employees were unjustified. However, as the
district court pointed out, whether those allegations were true is not the issue.
The issue is whether Electrolux believed them and acted on that belief.

Therefore, we affirm the district court's order granting Electrolux's motion for

summary judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

You might also like