Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
No. 95-1523
WILLIAM R. LEHMAN,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
Defendant, Appellee.
____________________
____________________
Before
____________________
____________________
____________________
William R. Lehman,
former employee
of
the Prudential
America ("Prudential"),
discrimination
Employment
in
sued in
violation
Insurance Company
of
the
for age
Massachusetts
L. ch. 151B,
of
Fair
4, and
Employment
Retirement
U.S.C.
motion
1140.
for
The
summary
Income
Security
district
judgment
Act
("ERISA"),
court granted
on
both
counts
29
Prudential's
and
denied
Lehman appealed.
We
affirm.
I.
Barbour v.
_______
In 1986,
County in Connecticut.
-22
In 1988,
Lehman
It consolidated its
directors.
-33
According
Lehman was
However, he did
not feel that this was possible, and after several meetings
discrimination.
package.
New England office, and Kiley, aged 57, directed the New York
office.
more specialized.
The remaining
-44
The
three newly appointed directors were aged 42, 42, and 40.
II.
II.
Summary
as a matter of law.
United States v.
_____________
Lareau v. Page, 39
______
____
4.1
Under
____________________
1.
relevant part:
-55
See Wheelock
___ ________
The first
In the
Blare
_____
____________________
2.
4.
To
116-17.
-66
plaintiff.4
Beal,
____
"[T]he burden
not onerous."
____________________
3.
years of age.
1(8).
4.
As
-77
College, 930 F.2d 124, 127 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S.
_______
____________
861 (1991).
against Prudential.
pretext, we need not tarry over the prima facie case issue.
See Vega v. Kodak Caribbean, Ltd., 3 F.3d 476, 479 (1st Cir.
___ ____
_____________________
See
___
1994).
____________________
5.
The
-88
believed that Dietz would best add the qualities required for
Kiley.
insurance industry; and (4) Dietz got along better with the
Prudential, therefore,
it was more likely than not that (1) Prudential did not offer
a "pretext."
"'[E]vidence
-99
region, was younger than he, and that the previous New
leadership.6
job.
____________________
6.
under his leadership, Lehman reports that (1) since 1986 the
New England agency was consistently in the top 40% of all
agencies; (2) the agency had very good policy persistency and
very low expenses; (3) he had hired and trained six brokerage
managers in New England; and (4) he had solicited work from
brokerage general agencies.
-1010
The average
not appointed.7
We
irrationality.
Odom v.
____
question").
____________________
7.
-1111
Lehman pointed to a
show animus based on age, but rather merely states that the
directors and points out that the use of actual costs under
This
age.8
See Gagne v.
___ _____
Northwestern Nat'l Ins. Co., 881 F.2d 309, 314 (6th Cir.
___________________________
____________________
8.
-1212
1989);
Dr.
hardworking.
Due to
photostats.
mentality.
-1313
There
We conclude that
of ERISA.
29 U.S.C.
1140.9
pension.
____________________
9.
29 U.S.C.
1140.
-1414
Barbour v.
_______
(collecting cases).
Id. at 38.
___
We again
decision.
F.3d at 37.
Barbour, 63
_______
-1515
v. Continental Can Co., 812 F.2d 834, 851 (3rd Cir.), cert.
___________________
_____
To demonstrate that
was a pretext; and (2) that the true reason was to interfere
___
(emphasis added).
Barbour, 63 F.3d at 39
_______
____________________
10.
-1616
statement that benefits actually cost more than they had been
decision.
basis, and that Pru Select's top management, who made the
of pension costs.
pension obligation.
We are satisfied
-1717
Affirmed.
Affirmed.
________
Costs to Appellee.
Costs to Appellee.
-1818