Eight-Year Age Gap between Candidates Found Too Small to Meet Threshold for Age Discrimination Claim
By Jerry L. Pigsley, Harding & Shultz, P.C., L.L.O.
Have you committed an age discrimination claim when you hire a younger worker? A federal court in Minnesota recently addressed this issue. Hilde v. City of Eveleth, Case No. Civ. No. 12-2794 (D. Minn. December 4, 2013). Leroy Hilde sued the City of Eveleth, Minnesota alleging he was passed over for the police chief position due to his age in violation of federal and state age discrimination laws. Hilde worked for the City as a police officer for 29 years, serving as the second highest ranking officer since 1998. In January 2012, the City’s police chief announced his intention to retire effective April 30. Hilde was among five applicants for the police chief opening and was not selected.
The Police Commission selected Tim Koivunen, a detective from another Minnesota police department. At the time of the Commission’s decision, Koivunen was 43 and Hilde was 51. Hilde pointed out that the sole fact that
28
Koivunen was younger than him proved age was a factor in the employer’s decision. However, the court wrote:
[H]iring a younger worker may well suggest, in appropriate circumstances, that age was a factor in the employer’s decision. But context is everything, and in the Court’s view, often it will not suffice for a plaintiff simply to point to the chosen candidate and exclaim, “He’s younger!”
The court found the “cases require evidence showing that the selected candidate was substantially or significantly younger.” Indeed, the Eighth Circuit (controlling in South Dakota), has held an eight-year age gap is too small to meet the “substantially younger” threshold. See Chambers v. Travelers Co., 668 F.3d 559, 566 (8th Cir. 2012).
The court went on to find that assuming Hilde had established a prima facie case of age discrimination, it still would have rejected his claims because he failed to offer
SOUTH DAKOTA MUNICIPALITIES
