Tenth Circuit Reaffirms Plaintiffs’ Ability to Plead Alternative Discrimination Theories, Notwithstanding Contradictory Allegations or Causation Standards
A.J. Peters, Of Counsel
The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit revived a medical professional's state age discrimination claim where the facts he alleged sufficiently implied he was terminated because of his age—notwithstanding that the plaintiff also alleged that his disability was the driving factor behind his termination. This case serves as a good reminder that even though age discrimination claims follow a but-for causation model, plaintiffs may allege that another factor (such as disability) was the “primary” reason for termination, so long as they also allege that age was the factor that made a difference in the employer’s decision to terminate.
Cline v. Clinical Perfusion Systems - Background Facts
A unanimous three-judge Tenth Circuit panel issued its to-be-published opinion in Cline v. Clinical Perfusion Systems, et al.,[1] in which a 61-year old plaintiff appealed the District Court’s dismissal of his age discrimination claims against the Tulsa, Oklahoma clinic that previously employed him. Plaintiff Charles Cline lost consciousness while stopped at a traffic light in March 2021. After 18 minutes of CPR, Cline was intubated and sent to the ICU for treatment and rehabilitation. Just over one month after his emergency, with impairments expected to last more than six months, his employer determined they could no longer hold Cline’s position open and terminated his employment. Cline made a relatively speedy recovery and, just four months after his initial absence, he asked for reinstatement to his old position. The clinic declined his request.
Claims and District Court Dismissal
Cline filed a state administrative charge and then a federal lawsuit alleging several claims, including disability discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. § 794(a), governed by the same substantive standards as the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”)) and age discrimination under Oklahoma law. The District Court granted the defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss all of Cline’s claims.
In particular, the District Court dismissed his disability discrimination claims because it found that Cline had not sufficiently pleaded facts to show that his requested accommodation (leave in excess of six months) was reasonable. The court also dismissed his age claim because it found that Cline had not adequately pleaded the required but-for causal connection between his age and the termination—particularly since Cline alleged that his disability was the primary motivator behind the employer’s actions.
Disability Claim Dismissal Upheld
On appeal, the Tenth Circuit upheld the dismissal of Cline’s disability discrimination claim, reasoning that, because Cline had been hospitalized and unable to perform the essential functions of his job, his only reasonable accommodation would be a brief leave of absence for his recovery. The Tenth Circuit agreed that Cline was obligated to provide the employer with an estimated date he could resume his job, which at the time was in excess of six months. Citing Tenth Circuit authority from 2014, the circuit found that Cline’s requested leave of absence exceeding six months would be “per se unreasonable” as an accommodation for his disability.
Age Claim Dismissal Reversed
As for Cline’s state age discrimination claim, however, the Tenth Circuit reversed. Applying the substantive framework for claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), the court noted that Cline needed to allege that his age was the but-for cause of his termination. Although age need not be the sole motivating factor in the employment decision, to hold the employer liable, an inference must be made that age was “the factor that made a difference.” While the District Court found that Cline’s complaint could not support such an inference because Cline also alleged that his disability was the primary factor leading to his termination, the Tenth Circuit disagreed.
The Tenth Circuit found that Cline had alleged sufficient facts by alleging that the reason the clinic gave him for his non-reinstatement — that the business’s financial condition was poor – was false, which at the pleadings stage was sufficient to support an inference of discrimination. The court also found that Cline’s allegations that the clinic hired two younger, less qualified employees to replace him was sufficient to plausibly allege that his age was a but-for cause of his termination. Importantly, the court found that the District Court erred in failing to permit Cline to plead an alternative age discrimination claim, notwithstanding that his allegations in support of both regarding causation may have been conflicting or inconsistent.
Key Takeaways
The Cline decision serves as a useful reminder that courts are forgiving at the pleadings stage when plaintiffs, like Cline, plead alternative discrimination theories which on their face may appear inconsistent or contradictory. In other words, the fact that age discrimination claims require a showing of but-for causation does not require plaintiffs to allege that their age was the only factor which resulted in their discipline or termination, as the case may be. Campbell Litigation remains available to assist employers with age discrimination issues and lawsuits under both federal and state law.
[1] Cline v. Clinical Perfusion Systems, --- F.4th ----, 2024 WL 501616 (10th Cir. 2024), available at https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca10/22-5107/22-5107-2024-02-09.html