Opara v. Yellen

After a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case for discrimination either based on the McDonnell Douglas factors or by offering direct or circumstantial evidence of discriminatory motive, “‘[t]he burden . . . shifts to the employer to articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the challenged action.’” E.E.O.C. v. Boeing Co., 577 F.3d 1044, 1049 (9th Cir. 2009) (second brackets in original) (quoting Chuang v. Univ. of Cal. Davis, Bd. of Trs., 225 F.3d 1115, 1123-24 (9th Cir. 2000)). Once an employer articulates some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the challenged action, the employee must show that the articulated reason is pretextual.

Plaintiff was accused of committing 2 UNAX violations as a Revenue Officer. When asked about the incidents, she blamed her lack of memory on her age. Seven years prior, she successfully filed an EEO complaint resulting from her hearing officer’s comments about employees aging out of the profession. Plaintiff was ultimately terminated in accordance with the IRS Manager’s Guide, and argued her termination was motivated by a discriminatory animus based on age. After a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case for discrimination either based on the McDonnell Douglas factors or by offering direct or circumstantial evidence of discriminatory motive, “‘[t]he burden . . . shifts to the employer to articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the challenged action.’” E.E.O.C. v. Boeing Co., 577 F.3d 1044, 1049 (9th Cir. 2009) (second brackets in original) (quoting Chuang v. Univ. of Cal. Davis, Bd. of Trs., 225 F.3d 1115, 1123-24 (9th Cir. 2000)). Once an employer articulates some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the challenged action, the employee must show that the articulated reason is pretextual. The record supported Plaintiff’s prima facie case of age discrimination; however, the UNAX violations were an adequate nondiscriminatory reason for the action. Because the record only contained Plaintiff’s allegations, the direct evidence of the age-related discriminatory animus was insufficient to raise a genuine issue as to pretext. Affirmed.