Evidence Over Inference: Fourth Circuit Rejects Same-Actor Inference in Recent Employment Discrimination Case

A recent case from the United States Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, Lattinville-Pace v. Intelligent Waves LLC, has important implications for employers. In the case, a 67-year-old employee brought suit alleging age discrimination after being discharged. The employee was terminated without warning, with the justification for her discharge being that she was not a “cultural fit.” An individual who was nearly thirty years younger was hired as her replacement.

The Fourth Circuit reversed the lower court’s dismissal of the employee’s age discrimination claim, deeming it plausible, given the facts of the case, that the employee was discharged due to her age. Consequently, the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Same-Actor Inference

Lattinville-Pace challenges a long-standing defense in employment discrimination cases: the “same-actor inference.” In its simplest terms, the same-actor inference states that if an employer intended to discriminate against an employee, the employer would not have first taken action that benefits the employee by hiring them at the outset.

The same-actor inference dates back to a prior Fourth Circuit case, Proud v. Stone, decided in 1991. In Proud, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals evaluated an age discrimination claim asserted by a 68-year-old employee who was replaced by a 32-year-old employee only four months after he began his role. The court held that dismissal of the discharged employee’s case was proper when the employee was hired by the same individual or the same actor who would later fire him. The fact that in a short time span, the same actor did both the hiring and the firing was, in the court’s eyes, a clear indication that discrimination was not a determining factor in the discharge.

Since Proud was decided in 1991, the same-actor inference has been cited in numerous cases and broadened in scope over time. The same-actor inference has been applied to groups of people involved in employment decisions rather than a single individual, and the time span consideration has been stretched from four months to as long as seven years in some cases.

How Does Lattinville-Pace Affect Employers?

Lattinville-Pace’s rejection of the same-actor inference marks a change in the way courts will treat future employment discrimination cases. As Lattinville-Pace is a new case, it remains to be seen how courts will treat the same-actor inference moving forward, but employers should take note of this change in treatment as summarized below:

• Courts will consider all factors: Employers should recognize that if they face an age discrimination claim, courts will take a well-rounded approach, considering all the factors involved in determining whether discrimination exists.

• Evidence over inference: In Lattinville-Pace, the court examined several items proffered as evidence that the employee provided in support of her age discrimination claim, including her qualifications and expertise, the praise and rewards she received from senior management, her termination without warning just days after she was praised for her work, the vague “cultural fit” explanation behind her discharge, and the fact that her replacement was significantly younger.

• Reliance on same-actor inference is weakened: Employers can no longer rely on the fact that the same person who hired the employee discharged the employee if an age discrimination claim arises. If a court is presented with evidence demonstrating potential age discrimination, this evidence is likely to trump the same-actor inference.

If you have questions about this topic or any other employment-related matter, please contact Connie Carrigan at (919) 250-2119 or email her at ccarrigan@smithdebnamlaw.com.

Co-written with Andrea Renegar – 2024 Smith Debnam Summer Associate

Andrea Renegar is a 2024 Smith Debnam Summer Associate. She comes to Smith Debnam after recently completing her second year of law school at Campbell University. Andrea earned a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and English & Comparative Literature from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Before enrolling in law school, she gained experience as a legal Assistant and paralegal.