Stacy v. LSI Corp., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 22885 (3d. Cir. 11/13/13)

The Third Circuit rejects plaintiff’s gender identity claim, finding that an employer’s reason for selecting the plaintiff in a reduction in force was not a pretext for unlawful discrimination.

The Third Circuit held that the plaintiff failed to present evidence demonstrating that her termination through a reduction in force was a pretext for unlawful gender identity discrimination. The plaintiff filed suit, alleging that she was provided with a poor performance review from her supervisor after she had returned from a gender identity disorder surgery and had made a complaint about the performance review to her supervisor’s direct supervisor. One year later, following a merger, the company engaged in a series of layoffs in response to the declining economy, which resulted in the layoff of more than 3,700 positions over an eight-month time frame. The plaintiff’s supervisor’s direct supervisor was instructed to reduce his department’s staff by eight employees. In making this decision, he first determined which job positions and functions would be impacted by the reduction in force, and he then conducted a skills assessment of the individuals in those groups. The plaintiff was the lead engineer in a three-member group and was rated lowest of the three in the skills assessment. After discussing the findings with management, the plaintiff was informed of the decision to lay her off.

In rejecting the plaintiff’s allegation that her layoff was motivated by unlawful gender identity discrimination, the Third Circuit reasoned that the plaintiff failed to contradict the facts of record that the supervisor was directed by his superiors to reduce his workforce, he selected several groups of employees who would be impacted, he chose the skills to be evaluated based upon those he believed would be beneficial to the employer moving forward and the plaintiff was ranked the lowest within her group. Based upon this finding, the Third Circuit upheld dismissal of the plaintiff’s discrimination claims as a matter of law.

 

Case Law Alert, 1st Quarter 2014