“Despite their impressive track records and indications of interest in promotion, plaintiffs were not given a chance to apply for the position. Instead, without soliciting applications, Circle K chose Miko Angeles for the role.”

💡 This shows Circle K denied plaintiffs the basic opportunity to compete for the role they were qualified for and interested in.

“Celusta declared that George Wilkins told him that he was ‘out of touch’ and ‘too old for this business’ after he told Wilkins that he was 56. Wilkins also encouraged Celusta to ‘start thinking about retiring.'”

💡 Direct evidence of age-based animus by a senior executive involved in promotion decisions.

“Thomas Maloney declared that Gerardo Valencia ‘press[ed] [him] to remove older employees for no business reasons.'”

💡 Shows a pattern of age discrimination at the executive level beyond this single promotion decision.

“Staats declared that Maloney told her that Valencia and Wilkins ‘wanted only younger people with MBAs.'”

💡 Establishes that Circle K executives explicitly expressed a preference for younger candidates.

“According to Maloney’s declaration, Angeles was responsible for 231 dealers as the Southeast regional director but managed to meet with only 10. And although regional directors are expected to visit each State in their region at least quarterly, Angeles traveled to Florida and North Carolina only once in more than a year.”

💡 Contradicts Circle K’s claim that the selected candidate was uniquely qualified based on his prior experience.

“Angeles’s productivity scores put him in the 30th percentile of his DBM peer group. So extreme was Angeles’s underperformance that Maloney declared that he ought to have been disqualified from promotion under Circle K’s policies.”

💡 Further undermines Circle K’s justification for selecting Angeles over the more qualified plaintiffs.

“Circle K concedes that it did not seek applications, asserting that it ‘decided there was no need to open the [role] for applications, internally or externally, because Angeles laterally moving into the West Coast Regional Director position was a decision that made business sense for Circle K.'”

💡 Circle K admits it bypassed its normal hiring process, raising questions about why it made an exception in this case.

“Plaintiffs presented four declarations stating that when a position became available, Circle K would inform its employees of the vacancy either through email or its intranet.”

💡 Shows Circle K had an established practice of posting openings internally, which it abandoned for this role.

“It makes little sense to require plaintiffs to demonstrate that they submitted an application when an employer declines to solicit applications and does not announce that a position is available.”

💡 The court rejects Circle K’s argument that plaintiffs failed to apply, noting they had no way to do so.

“Although 10 years is the presumptive threshold for a substantial age difference, a plaintiff can overcome that presumption by ‘producing additional evidence to show that the employer considered his or her age to be significant.'”

💡 Establishes the legal standard that allowed Caldrone to proceed despite a 9.3-year age gap.

“That evidence may or may not convince a jury that the ultimate promotion decision was based on age, but for purposes of establishing a prima facie case, it creates an issue of fact about whether Circle K ‘considered age in general to be significant in making its promotion decisions.'”

💡 The court finds sufficient evidence to let a jury decide whether age discrimination occurred.

“Plaintiffs’ declarations were not offered to establish the truth of any out-of-court statements but merely to establish Circle K’s pattern of conduct—namely, its prior practice of announcing vacancies.”

💡 The appeals court rejects the district court’s exclusion of key evidence about Circle K’s normal hiring practices.

“A jury could infer that this deviation was an attempt to prevent plaintiffs from applying for the role. That would undercut Circle K’s explanation that it chose Angeles because he was the only person to express interest in the position.”

💡 The court explains how a reasonable jury could find Circle K’s explanation was pretextual.

“Plaintiffs have thus raised a material dispute of fact as to whether Circle K’s proffered explanation for selecting Angeles was pretext for illegal discrimination, making summary judgment inappropriate.”

💡 The Ninth Circuit reverses the lower court and sends the case to trial.

“REVERSED and REMANDED.”

💡 Circle K must now face a jury on whether it illegally discriminated based on age.