Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 11-18-2024
Case Style:
Glorida Cocueeo v. Trader Joe's East, Inc.
Case Number:
Judge: Leo T. Sorokin
Court: United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Suffolk County)
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Defendant's Attorney:
Description:
Boston, Massachusetts, civil rights lawyer represented the Plaintiff on an employment discrimination claim.
Gloria Cocuzzo claims that she was terminated by her former employer of seventeen years, Trader Joe's East Inc. ("Trader
Joe's"), and her former supervisor, Jennifer Gillum, because of her age, in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634, and the Massachusetts Fair Employment Practices Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B ("Chapter 151B").
* * *
Because the analyses of age discrimination claims under the ADEA and Chapter 151B are "'substantially similar' in all
relevant respects," the claims can be examined together using the framework applicable to ADEA claims. Adamson v. Walgreens Co.,750 F.3d 73, 83 (1st Cir. 2014) (quoting Bennett v. Saint-Gobain Corp., 507 F.3d 23, 30 (1st Cir. 2007)). The ADEA makes it"unlawful for an employer . . . to discharge any individual ortherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to. . . compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of
employment, because of such individual's age." 29 U.S.C.§ 623(a)(1).4 Cocuzzo has not presented direct evidence of age
discrimination, so we evaluate her age discrimination claims under the familiar three-stage burden-shifting framework established in McConnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). See Soto-Feliciano v. Villa Cofresí Hotels, Inc., 779 F.3d 19, 22-23(1st Cir. 2015).
The first step of the McDonnell Douglas inquiry requires Cocuzzo to make out a prima facie case of employment
discrimination. See Vélez, 585 F.3d at 447. To do so in the context of an ADEA claim for discriminatory termination, Cocuzzo must show that (1) she "was at least 40 years old at the time [s]he was fired," (2) she "was qualified for the position [s]he had held," (3) she "was fired," and (4) Trader Joe's "subsequently filled the position, demonstrating a continuing need for "must elucidate specific facts which would enable a jury to find that the reason given is not only a sham, but a sham intended to cover up the employer's real and unlawful motive of discrimination." Id. (quoting Vélez, 585 F.3d at 452).
Ultimately, it is Cocuzzo's burden to establish "that age was the 'but-for' cause of [Trader Joe's] adverse action." Vélez, 585 F.3d at 448 (quoting Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., 557 U.S. 167, 177 (2009)).
Outcome: Defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted.
Affirmed on appeal
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: