Lloyd Dace worked for ACF Industries as a supervisor in the punchpress department of a carburetor factory. ACF demoted Dace to an hourly job on the assembly line, and Dace sued, claiming that ACF discriminated on the basis of age. At trial, Dace showed that he had been 53 years old when demoted and had been replaced by a man aged 40.

He offered evidence that ACF’s benefits supervisor had attended the meeting at which his demotion was decided and that the benefits supervisor was aware of the cost savings of replacing Dace with a younger man.

At the end of Dace’s case, ACF moved for a directed verdict and the trial court granted it.

The judge reasoned that Dace’s entire case was based on circumstantial evidence. He held that it was too speculative for the jury to infer age discrimination from the few facts that Dace had offered. Was the trial court correct?