Diaz v. Eagle Produce Limited Partnership
Filed April 4, 2008
Cite as 06-15878

Judgments on Age Discrimination Affirmed, Reversed and Remanded

Eagle Produce Limited Partnership (Eagle Produce) operates a commercial broccoli and melon farm in Aguila, Arizona.

Abel Ruiz Diaz, Ubaldo Moreno, Piedad H. Renteria, and Alejandro D. Mancilla (plaintiffs) are laborers at Eagle Produce's Aguila farm. With the exception of Mancilla, plaintiffs are members of a tractor crew known as Crew 94 responsible for preparing the soil for planting.

When the farm adopted the plastic mulching technique, the work available at the farm becomes particularly scarce in the winter of 2001-2002.

Brandt, as supervisor, terminates several workers during said period including plaintiffs. This termination is without regard to employee's experience, years of service, age or wage.

Plaintiffs filed an action in district court seeking declaratory relief and damages contending that their terminations are in violations of ADEA, the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The district court granted Eagle Produce’s motion for summary judgment on all claims. Plaintiffs, on the other hand, appeal only the disposition of their ADEA claim.

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirms in part, reverses in part, and remands for trial on one worker's claim of age discrimination. The appeal court, in deciding the case, finds the following:

• With the exception of Diaz, District court properly grants summary judgment against the plaintiffs based on the following grounds:
  
  
  1. Plaintiffs provided evidence of satisfactory job performance, and
  
  
  2. There is an accumulation of circumstantial evidence that could lead to age discrimination such as:
     
     
     • increase in disparity between average age of new hires and laid-off employees by 14 years after new supervisor arrived
     
     
     • new supervisor’s knowledge that newly hired workers were on average substantially younger than laid-off employees,
     
     
     • supervisor’s decision not to lay off younger workers with substantially less experience, and
     
     
     • relative inexperience of laid-off employees’ replacements
     
     
• With respect to Renteria, the District court appropriately entered summary judgment to him as he failed to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination. There is no triable issue existed as to whether his job performance was satisfactory.


• With respect to Diaz, Eagle Produce did not provide a facially legitimate explanation for his discharge in stating that the discharge was part of a reduction in force necessitated by a seasonal slowdown in agricultural activity.


• District court properly concluded that Eagle Produce offered legitimate nondiscriminatory explanation for the layoffs of Moreno and Mancilla where it stated that they were chosen to be part of workforce reduction because of damage they caused to company property.

In sum, the appeals court AFFIRMS the entry of summary judgment on the ADEA claims of Moreno, Renteria, and Mancilla. It REVERSES the entry of summary judgment on the ADEA claim of Diaz and REMANDS the case for trial on that claim.