Dilla v. Caldera, 179 F.3d 1348 (11th Cir. 1999). · Go Syfert
Search
Dilla v. Caldera, 179 F.3d 1348 (11th Cir. 1999). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“reliance on factors correlated with age does not by itself constitute age discrimination but purported reliance on such factors may be a pretext for discrimination.”
10 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Gloetzner v. Lynch (flnd, 2016-12-02)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Gloetzner v. Lynch
N.D. Fla. · 2016 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
reliance on factors correlated with age does not by itself constitute age discrimination but purported reliance on such factors may be a pretext for discrimination.
discussed Cited "see" Mitchell v. City of Miami Beach
S.D. Fla. · 2022 · signal: see · confidence high
See Dilla v. West, 179 F.3d 1348 , 1349 (11th Cir. 1999) (affirming rejection of age discrimination claim where the trial court concluded that “the mere fact that there exists a perfect correlation, or even a direct link, between age and the factor purportedly relied upon by the employer does not perforce mean that the employer has impermissibly relied on age”).
discussed Cited "see" Bonham v. Regions Mortgage, Inc.
M.D. Ala. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See Dilla v. West, 4 F.Supp.2d 1130, 1139 (M.D.Ala.1998) (Thompson, J.) (“The court will proceed on the basis of the more constricted definition of direct evidence, as employed in the most recent decisions of the Eleventh Circuit, and find that the plaintiffs have proffered direct evidence of age discrimination only if the statements at issue are sufficient, without inference or presumption, to prove discriminatory intent to commit the challenged act.”), aff'd, 179 F.3d 1348 (11th Cir.1999).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Wright v. Southland Corporation (2×)
11th Cir. · 1999 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Bogle v. Orange County Bd. of County Comm'rs, 162 F.3d 653 , 6 In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir.1981) (en banc), this court adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to October 1, 1981. 7 See, e.g., Dilla v. West, 4 F.Supp.2d 1130, 1137 (M.D.Ala.1998), aff'd 179 F.3d 1348 (11th Cir.1999) ("[T]he determination of whether the plaintiffs have established age discrimination by direct evidence is somewhat complicated by the fact that the definition of what constitutes direct evidence of discrimination is subject t…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Robert P. DILLA, Hale P. Lane, Jr., Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
Togo D. WEST, Jr., Secretary, Department of the Army, Defendant-Appellee
98-6457.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Jul 8, 1999.
179 F.3d 1348
Laurie A. McCann, Thomas W. Osborne, AARP, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs-Appellants., Patricia A. Snyder and Kenneth E. Vines, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Montgomery, AL, Brian C. Corneilson, Arlington, VA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Tjoflat, Dubina, Hull.
Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 61%
Citer courts: N.D. Florida (1)
PER CURIAM:

The appellants — Robert Dilla, Hale Lane, and Dennis Eason — applied for an air traffic controller position with the United States Army. Ml three were rejected in favor of a substantially younger applicant, Kevin Nolan. Subsequently, the appellants filed suit against the Secretary of the Army in federal district court, alleging that the Army’s refusal to hire them was based on age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634 (1994). After a bench trial, the district court found that the appellants were rejected because (1) they would be eligible to retire much sooner than Nolan and (2) they had achieved a higher pay grade than Nolan in previous employment, and therefore would require a higher salary than Nolan in the air traffic controller position. [1] See Dilla v. West, 4 F.Supp.2d 1130, 1141-44 (M.D.Ala.1998), corrected by 31 F.Supp.2d 1347 (M.D.Ala.1999). Both of these factors are directly correlated with age — older workers are generally (but not necessarily) closer to meeting federal retirement criteria and further advanced in their pay grade than younger workers. The district court, however, relying on Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604, 113 S.Ct. 1701, 123 L.Ed.2d 338 (1993), concluded that “the mere fact that there exists a perfect correlation, or even a direct link, between age and the factor purportedly relied upon by the employer does not perforce mean that the employer has impermissibly relied on age.” Dilla, 4 F.Supp.2d at 1142-43. Consequently, the district court ruled in favor of the defendant.

We agree with the district court’s analysis of Hazen Paper: Reliance on factors correlated with age does not by itself constitute age discrimination. To be sure, purported reliance on such factors may be a pretext for discrimination; if so, the defendant has violated the ADEA. See id. at 1142. The district court, however, concluded on the basis of substantial evidence that no such pretext was involved in this case. The district court’s judgment is therefore

AFFIRMED.

1

. More specifically, the district court held that, even if the defendant's decision was based in part on the appellants' ages, the same decision would have been made in the absence of such discrimination for the two reasons stated in the text.