Wassel v. Mutual Life Ins. Co.

3 Citing cases

  1. Grosjean v. First Energy Corp.

    349 F.3d 332 (6th Cir. 2003)   Cited 463 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "in the absence of direct evidence that the employer considered age to be significant, an age difference of six years or less between an employee and a replacement is not significant"

    by 54-year old may be insufficient); Radue v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 219 F.3d 612, 619 (7th Cir. 2000) (termination of 53-year old while retaining 46-year old and 44-year old, without more, insufficient); Lesch v. Crown Cork Seal Co., 282 F.3d 467, 472 (7th Cir. 2002) (replacement of 62 year old accountant by 53-year old insufficient); Dunaway v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 310 F.3d 758, 767 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (replacement of employee by other 7 years younger insufficient without more); Richter v. Hook-SupeRx, 142 F.3d 1024, 1029 (7th Cir. 1998) (replacement of 52-year old by 45-year old insufficient); Black v. Columbus Pub. Sch., 124 F.Supp.2d 550, 574-75 (S.D.Ohio 2000) (replacement of 52-year old by 45-year old insufficient); Hartley v. Wisc. Bell, 124 F.3d 887, 892 (7th Cir. 1997) (age difference of 6 or 7 years presumptively insufficient); Woodsmall v. Eclipse Mfg. Co., 249 F.Supp.2d 918, 923-24 (E.D.Tenn. 2002) (implying that replacement of 59-year old with 53-year old insufficient); Wassel v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 164 F.3d 633, 1998 WL 700537, at *1 (9th Cir. 1998) (table) (replacement by person 6 years younger insufficient); Kalagian v. Carwein, 57 F.3d 1077, 1995 WL 323801, at *1 (9th Cir. 1995) (table) (replacement of 50-year old with two 44-year olds insufficient); Mroz, at *4 (6th Cir. 1997) (table) (41-year-old worker not significantly younger than 47-year-old plaintiff); Cramer v. Intelidata Techs. Corp., 168 F.3d 481, 1998 WL 911735, at *3 (4th Cir. 1998) (table) (replacement of employee with person 5 years younger insufficient); Wellman v. Wheeling Lake Eric Ry. Co., 134 F.3d 373, 1998 WL 25005, at *4 (6th Cir. 1998) (table) (replacement of 46-year old with 41-year old insufficient); Cianci v. Pettibone Corp., 152 F.3d 723, 728 (7th Cir. 1998) (replacement of 47-year old by 42-year old, even combined with supervisor's comment that plaintiff was "getting too old for the job," insufficient); Schiltz v. Burlington N.R.R., 115 F.3d 1407, 1412 n. 6 (8th Cir. 1997) (where six positions that 48-year old plaintiff applied for were filled by p

  2. Hothem v. Schneider

    865 F. Supp. 2d 962 (D.S.D. 2012)   Cited 1 times

    Some of the cases referenced in Grosjean were: Girten v. McRentals, 337 F.3d 979, 981 (8th Cir.2003) (stating that replacement of 63–year old by 54–year old may be insufficient); Radue v. Kimberly–Clark Corp., 219 F.3d 612, 619 (7th Cir.2000) (termination of 53–year old while retaining 46–year old and 44–year old, without more, insufficient); ... Dunaway v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 310 F.3d 758, 767 (D.C.Cir.2002) (replacement of employee by other 7 years younger insufficient without more); ... Wassell v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 164 F.3d 633, 1998 WL 700537, at *1 (9th Cir.1998) (table) (replacement by person 6 years younger insufficient); ... Cramer v. Intelidata Techs. Corp., 168 F.3d 481, 1998 WL 911735, at *3 (4th Cir.1998) (table) (replacement of employee with person 5 years younger insufficient); Wellman v. Wheeling & Lake Erie Ry. Co., 134 F.3d 373, 1998 WL 25005, at *4 (6th Cir.1998) (table) (replacement of 46–year old with 41–year old insufficient); ... Schiltz v. Burlington N. R.R., 115 F.3d 1407, 1412 & n. 6 (8th Cir.1997) (where six positions that 48–year old plaintiff applied for were filled by persons aged 43, 46, 51, 55, 48, and 47 no prima facie age discrimination case exists)....Id. at 338–339.

  3. Rogers v. Operations Technologies, Inc.

    Civil No. 1:04CV00839HSO-RHW (S.D. Miss. Aug. 7, 2007)

    Grosjean v. First Energy Corp., 349 F.3d 332, 338 (6 th Cir. 2003); see also Girten v. McRentals, 337 F.3d 979, 981 (8th Cir. 2003); Radue v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 219 F.3d 612, 619 (7th Cir. 2000); Williams v. Raytheon Co., 220 F.3d 16, 20 (1st Cir. 2000); Munoz v. St. Mary-Corwin Hosp., 221 F.3d 1160, 1166 (10th Cir. 2000); Wassel v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 164 F.3d 633, 1995 Wl 323801, at *1 (9th Cir. 1995). The Fifth Circuit has not stated a bright line rule, but has noted that a five year age difference is a "close question."