Bo Zou sued Linde Engineering North America, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, alleging race and age discrimination under Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), as well as retaliation claims under both statutes. Before the court were cross-motions for summary judgment filed by both parties.
Statement of Undisputed Facts
Linde hired Zou, a 54-year-old Chinese American, as a piping engineer in October 2018. Prior to Zou’s hiring, Linde had employed two Caucasian males under 40, Dustin Duncan and Kenny Sharp, as piping designers who were later promoted to piping design engineers. In May 2019, Zou complained to HR about various issues, including that Sharp was performing Zou’s job duties and that Zou was excluded from meetings. After an investigation found no evidence to support his claims, Zou was laid off in August 2019 as part of a larger reduction in force (RIF) that affected eighteen Tulsa employees.
Evidentiary Disputes
The court addressed Zou’s challenge to the declaration of Deana Hoey, a member of Linde’s HR department. The court found Zou’s credibility challenges insufficient to exclude the declaration, noting he failed to identify any material inconsistencies.
Legal Analysis
Race and Age Discrimination: The court analyzed both discrimination claims under the McDonnell Douglas framework. While assuming Zou established a prima facie case, the court found Linde provided a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for termination through the RIF. The court rejected Zou’s various pretext arguments, including claims of disparate treatment, improper position elimination, and statistical evidence.
Retaliation: The court found Zou failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation because his complaints to HR did not constitute protected activity, as they failed to attribute any alleged disparate treatment to his race or age. Additionally, the court found that even if Zou could establish a prima facie case, he failed to show Linde’s RIF explanation was pretextual.
The court denied Zou’s motion for summary judgment and granted Linde’s motion for summary judgment on all claims.
Schrag on Law 