Stallings

Stallings v. Walmart, Inc.

Good Law
123 F. App'x 273
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 17, 2004No. 03-16958; D.C. No. CV-02-00515-SOMCalifornia430 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Plaintiff-Appellant James Stallings was employed as a people greeter for Sam’s Club, a division of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. *274 (“Wal-Mart”), for several years until he was terminated at the age of 78. Stallings alleges age discrimination under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 623 , and Hawaii’s Employment Discrimination Law, Haw. Rev.Stat. § 378-2. Stallings also asserts claims for negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Wal-Mart as to all claims. We affirm.

To establish a prima facie case using circumstantial evidence under the ADEA and Hawaii law, Stallings must demonstrate that he was (1) a member of the protected class (age 40 or over); (2) performing his job in a satisfactory manner; (3) discharged; and (4) replaced by a substantially younger employee with equal or inferior qualifications. Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1281 (9th Cir. 2000); Shoppe v. Gucci Am., Inc., 94 Hawaii 368 , 14 P.3d 1049, 1058 (2000). Stallings has not demonstrated that he was replaced by a substantially younger employee with equal or lesser…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.