O'Connor v. Consolidated Coin Caterers Corp., 517 U.S. 308 (1996) (U.S. Supreme Court)
O'Connor v. Consolidated Coin Caterers Corp.
Under the ADEA, must a plaintiff who was discharged and replaced establish that the replacement is outside the protected class (under 40) to make out a prima facie case, or is it sufficient to show the replacement was substantially younger?
The ADEA prohibits employment discrimination because of age, not because of membership in a protected class. Accordingly, in establishing a prima facie case of age discrimination under the McDonnell Douglas framework in a discharge/replacement case, a plaintiff need not show that the replacement is under 40. It is sufficient to show that the replacement was substantially younger than the plaintiff or that other circumstances surrounding the adverse action give rise to an inference of age discrimination. The McDonnell Douglas elements are flexible and should not be applied as inflexible, categorical requirements.
No. A plaintiff need not prove that he was replaced by someone outside the protected class. Replacement by a substantially younger person is a more reliable indicator of age discrimination. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the Fourth Circuit and remanded for further proceedings under the correct legal standard.
O'Connor is a leading case clarifying that the ADEA's prima facie case does not hinge on whether the replacement is under 40. It established the "substantially younger" test, which better aligns with the statute's text and purpose and is now widely applied across circuits. For law students, the case illustrates (1) the flexibility of the McDonnell Douglas framework, (2) the importance of tailoring prima facie elements to the specific antidiscrimination statute at issue, and (3) the distinction between statutory coverage and the substantive prohibition. It also underscores the limited, burden-shifting function of the prima facie case at summary judgment and the centrality of age-focused evidence in ADEA litigation.