Houser v. Carpenter Tech Corp , 216 F. App'x 263 ( 2007 )

Opinions of the United
2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
2-15-2007
Houser v. Carpenter Tech Corp
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 05-4575
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007
Recommended Citation
"Houser v. Carpenter Tech Corp" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 1619.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/1619
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
__________
No. 05-4575
__________
DENNIS HOUSER,
Appellant
v.
CARPENTER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION
__________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 04-cv-00237)
District Judge: Honorable Jacob P. Hart
__________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
on January 8, 2007
Before: SLOVITER and RENDELL , Circuit Judges,
and IRENAS*, District Judge.
(Filed: February 15, 2007)
__________
OPINION OF THE COURT
__________
__________________
* Honorable Joseph E. Irenas, Senior Judge of the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey, sitting by designation.
RENDELL, Circuit Judge.
Dennis Houser appeals from the District Court’s grant of summary judgment in
favor of Carpenter Technology Corporation (“Carpenter”) and against him on his claim
that he was terminated from his employment with Carpenter in violation of the Age
Discrimination and Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 612 et seq. and the
Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (“PHRA”), 43 P.S. § 951 et seq. We will affirm.
Houser had been an employee of Carpenter since 1987, progressing from being a
training specialist within the Human Resources (HR) Department to, finally, serving as a
project manager within the Information Technology (IT) Department. In September
2002, his position was eliminated as part of a reduction in Carpenter’s workforce.
Houser’s supervisor testified at his deposition that Carpenter was changing the nature of
the work its IT department would do, involving less project management, which was the
area of Houser’s experience and expertise. Houser was eliminated because he did not
possess the proficiency and technical skills necessary for the company’s new IT focus.
Houser contends that summary judgment was improperly granted, because there were
unresolved issues of fact, and Carpenter’s proffered reasons were pretextual. Houser also
contends that the trial judge erred in refusing to permit him to amend his complaint to
pursue a disparate impact claim, and also in failing to apply a “mixed motive” standard in
ruling on the motion for summary judgment.1
1
The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We apply a plenary standard of review to
2
As we write primarily for the parties, we need not recount all of the facts, but
only those necessary to our decision. At the time that he was terminated, Houser was
53 years of age. He described his role as project manager as being “responsible for the
cost scheduled performance of moving forward with a strategic objective that’s been
decided [upon] by the business people, senior level business people in the company.”
Houser Dep. 47:16-19, Feb. 23, 2005; Appx. 28. Although originally contending to the
contrary, Houser eventually conceded that there was a reduction in force at the time he
was terminated. Approximately 130 employees were terminated by the company.
Houser commenced his action in state court in November 2003 after receiving his
Right To Sue letter from the EEOC. Carpenter then removed the case to the District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in early 2004, and the parties consented to
jurisdiction by a Magistrate Judge. Thereafter, Houser moved to amend his complaint to
add a disparate impact theory, a motion which was denied by the Magistrate Judge. After
significant discovery took place, Carpenter moved for summary judgment, which was
granted by the District Court in a thoughtful opinion.
Having reviewed the file on appeal and the District Court’s orders and opinion, we
find no reason to disturb the Court’s rulings. Specifically, with respect to the request to
amend the complaint to add a disparate impact theory as permitted by Smith v. Jackson,
determinations of law by the District Court and an abuse of discretion standard with
respect to the denial by the District Court of Houser’s request to amend his complaint.
Garvin v. City of Phila., 354 F.3d 215 (3d Cir. 2003).
3
544 U.S. 228 (2005), we agree with the District Court that such amendment would be
futile in light of the fact that Houser has not pointed to any specific test, requirement,
policy, or practice by Carpenter that had a disparate impact upon older employees. Thus,
we conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Houser’s
motion to amend.
Second, with respect to Houser’s claim that the District Court should have
employed a “mixed motive” standard in ruling on the motion for summary judgment, we
cannot agree. Under a “mixed motive” analysis, a plaintiff can succeed if the improper
reason was a “motivating factor,” not necessarily the determinative factor. See Desert
Palace, Inc. v. Costa, 539 U.S. 90, 101 (2003). While the “mixed motive” standard is
normally used in instructing juries, Houser points to two decisions from other courts of
appeals that, he contends, “show an inclination to incorporate a Desert Palace rationale in
their traditional summary judgment analysis.”2 However, we find this characterization to
be somewhat imprecise and, in any event, not controlling. The parties have cited
numerous cases that might bear on this issue, but we need not discuss them because the
lack of evidence renders the resolution of this issue unnecessary. Even if a “mixed
motive” analysis were appropriate at the summary judgment stage, which our court has
not addressed, Houser cannot succeed under a “mixed motives” approach, because
Houser points to no evidence that would lead us to conclude that age played any role in
2
See Machinchick v. PB Power, Inc., 398 F.3d 345 (5th Cir. 2005); Rachid v. Jack in
the Box, Inc., 376 F.3d 305 (5th Cir. 2004).
4
his termination. Instead, Houser focuses on attacking the criteria and decisionmaking by
Carpenter, specifically its view that Houser did not have the requisite technical skills and
flexible skill set for the company’s future technology needs. Accordingly, Houser’s
failure to demonstrate that age was one of Carpenter’s motives for his termination dooms
this argument.
We find the District Court’s opinion granting summary judgment to be well-
reasoned. After considering the summary judgment standard and the law governing the
application of the ADEA and McDonnell Douglas legal methodologies, the District Court
acknowledged that Houser has shown a prima facie case of age discrimination. The
District Court then reviewed significant deposition testimony of supervisory personnel at
Carpenter explaining the way in which the reduction in force was conducted with a view
toward assessing the skills of various personnel as compared to the skills that would be
necessary for the contracted work that Carpenter would be performing. This work was of
a technical nature and the company wanted to retain those who could “provide the most
flexibility in what we viewed was the work of the future.” Bommentree Dep. 31:14-15,
Mar. 4, 2005; Appx. 88.
5
Specifically, with respect to Houser, the testimony consistently indicated that he
was not as “technically capable” or “versatile” as others. The District Court determined
that Houser had not discredited Carpenter’s proffered reasons, but had only questioned
the methodology employed by those in positions of authority. Moreover, Houser had not
produced information as to the nature or the relative superiority of his own technical
background, nor had he cast doubt on the technical abilities of those who were retained.
In addition, Houser had not shown that, as a whole, the reduction in force focused on
older employees more than younger employees, and he conceded in his deposition that he
knew of no instance of age discrimination directed toward him other than his discharge.
The District Court concluded that
although Houser put forth a prima facie case of age
discrimination, he has not come forward with evidence
sufficient to create a genuine issue of fact as to whether
Carpenter’s asserted reason for his discharge was pretextual.
Appx. 14.
We agree. For the reasons set forth above, we will AFFIRM the District Court’s
grant of summary judgment in favor of Carpenter.
6