The plaintiff Judy Jones began working for Oklahoma City Public Schools as a teacher in 1969. She was the principal of an elementary school for approximately fifteen years. In 2002, she was promoted to Executive Director of Curriculum and Instruction. Her performance in this position was rated as satisfactory or better. Starting in 2006, there were a number of changes made in the top administration of the district. In 2007, when the plaintiff was about 60 years-old, her position was eliminated and she was reassigned to an elementary school principal position. She was told that her higher Executive Director salary would be maintained for only a year. In the following year, her salary was reduced by $17,000, which also had the effect of reducing her pension benefits. She saw a reduction in vacation time immediately upon reassignment. About a month after eliminating the plaintiff’s position and reassigning her, the superintendent created a new position called Executive Director of Learning and Teaching. The new position contained many of the same responsibilities as the plaintiff’s old position had and was filled by a 47 year-old. The plaintiff sued for age discrimination. The district court granted summary judgment to the school district. 

1. What was the legal issue in this case? What did the court decide?

2. How is the plaintiff able to establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment?

3. Which reasons did the employer offer for its decision to reassign the employee? What is the evidence that these might be pretext?

4. What does the court mean when it refers to a “pretext-plus standard”? How did the district court err in applying this standard?

5. What does it mean for age to be a “but-for” cause? Do you think that Jones will be able to prove age discrimination at trial? Why or why not?