Brenda Willmore sued her former employer, Savvas Learning Company, LLC, in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, claiming age and gender discrimination in violation of Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Before the court was Savvas’s motion for summary judgment.
Statement of Undisputed Facts
Willmore worked at Savvas and its predecessor companies for over 20 years as an Account Manager for Kansas. At the time of her termination in May 2021, she was 59 years old. Her duties included selling educational materials to school districts and maintaining customer relationships. While she received a performance award in 2019, she failed to meet sales goals in 2017, 2018, and 2020, and was not projected to meet her 2021 goals.
Two major Kansas school districts, Blue Valley and Derby, requested that Willmore be removed from their accounts due to performance issues. After being instructed not to contact Derby, Willmore continued to reach out to them. Savvas also believed Willmore had falsified records regarding customer meetings. After reviewing these issues, Savvas terminated Willmore and replaced her with Brian Owen, a younger male employee.
Evidentiary Disputes: The court addressed challenges to the admissibility of termination letters and talking points as hearsay, finding them likely admissible as business records and/or not hearsay since they were offered to show Savvas’s state of mind rather than for their truth.
Legal Analysis
McDonnell Douglas Framework: The court analyzed the discrimination claims under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework. Savvas did not dispute Willmore’s prima facie case but offered legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for termination.
Pretext Analysis: The court examined Willmore’s three arguments for pretext: alleged inconsistent reasons for termination, implausibility of reasons, and disparate treatment of similarly situated employees. The court rejected each argument, finding Savvas’s reasons consistent and well-documented, the termination decision plausible given performance issues, and the proposed comparators not similarly situated.
Magistrate Judge’s Order: The court addressed Willmore’s objection to the Magistrate Judge’s denial of an evidentiary hearing on spoliation sanctions, finding the objection meritless.
The court granted Savvas’s motion for summary judgment on both the age and gender discrimination claims and overruled Willmore’s objection to the Magistrate Judge’s order.
Schrag on Law 