The opinion of the court was delivered by: MCLAUGHLIN
McLAUGHLIN, District Judge.
Plaintiff brings this discrimination action under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, (the "ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634, because he was demoted and his salary was reduced. Plaintiff is now seventy years old, and at all times relevant to this action was within the age group protected by the ADEA. A one-day trial was conducted, without a jury, on November 15, 1984. Both sides have submitted briefs, and have furnished proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. For the reasons developed below, judgment will be entered for the defendant.
On July 19, 1948, plaintiff began his career with J.C. Penney as an architectural draftsman in defendant's Stores and Facilities Construction Planning Department. Twenty years later he had risen to the first-level management position of architectural squad leader. The duties of a squad leader normally entail supervising the preparation of architectural drawings for the company's stores and facilities. Plaintiff's initial responsibility as a squad leader, however, was to ensure that retail store signs were properly delivered and installed.
Defendant contends that, although plaintiff was paid as a squad leader, he never actually performed supervisory functions and was not regarded as a squad leader by management. Plaintiff, on the other hand, claims that no one ever told him that he was not doing squad leader work. Indeed, plaintiff testified that he received only one negative performance evaluation in the thirty-one years prior to his demotion and that evaluation was in 1974. in any event, in January 1974, the functions plaintiff had been performing were reassigned to the project coordinator in charge of architectural drawings.
Plaintiff was assigned to work for a short time under the supervision of another squad leader. Then, in August 1975, he was assigned to serve as an assistant to the Chief Construction Engineer. Plaintiff held this position until November 1, 1979, the date of his demotion. His duties in this position were largely clerical and non-supervisory, and included performing routine cost calculations and drafting functions, checking store leases to ensure conformance with a checklist of requirements, and reviewing files to identify contractors supplying defective roofing materials. Defendant concedes that plaintiff performed these duties satisfactorily and received average salary increases.
On November 1, 1979, the company implemented a reduction in force in the Stores and Facilities Construction Planning Department. The layoffs and demotions that followed were attributable to a reduction in the anticipated expansion of new stores from over six million square feet to approximately three million square feet. Selections for layoffs and demotions were based on an evaluation of the necessity of the functions and the level of performance of the individual employees.
Plaintiff's position was among those eliminated as part of the reduction in force. Accordingly, plaintiff's supervisors recommended that plaintiff's employment be terminated. Ironically, if this recommendation had been implemented it is unlikely that the instant litigation would have ensued. Although the recommendation was initially accepted, management later determined that, in lieu of termination, plaintiff would be demoted. Accordingly, on November 1, 1979, plaintiff was given four hours notice that his position was being eliminated and that he was being demoted to a Grade 6 architectural draftsman with a reduction in salary.
No action was taken by the company regarding the employment or pay status of the other five squad leaders, all of whom are younger than plaintiff -- and therein lies the rub.
Approximately six months after his demotion, plaintiff was promoted to a Grade 8 draftsman and given a ten percent salary increase.
Subsequent appraisals indicated that plaintiff continued to perform satisfactorily at the Grade 8 level. Defendant contends that plaintiff was placed on a "fast track" for salary review so that his salary at the time of his voluntary retirement on March 31, 1983 approximated the level it had reached at the time of his demotion. Plaintiff places a more sinister interpretation upon his recent good fortune. he contends that his promotion and escalated salary increases occurred only after he filed a charge of age discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). On December 2, 1980, the EEOC decided not to pursue plaintiff's charge. The present action was commenced on October 30, 1981.
Section 623(a)(1) of the ADEA makes it unlawful for an employer "to discharge ... or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment, because of such individual's age." 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(1). The ADEA provides further, however, that "it shall not be unlawful ... to take any action otherwise prohibited ... where the differentiation is based on reasonable factors other than age." 29 U.S.C. § 623(f)(1).
Once plaintiff has established a prima facie case of discrimination, the burden shifts to the defendant to advance a nondiscriminatory justification for the challenged employment decision. Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253, 67 L. Ed. 2d 207, 101 S. Ct. 1089 (1981). The burden of persuasion, however, remains at all times with the plaintiff. Id. at 254. Thus, once the defendant satisfies its limited burden of articulating a non-discriminatory justification for its action, the plaintiff must prove that the proffered justification is pretextual. Id. at 257; Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 578, 57 L. Ed. 2d 957, 98 S. Ct. 2943 (1978).
Plaintiff seeks recovery under a disparate treatment theory, claiming that his demotion and salary reduction were motivated by his age and by defendant's intention to force him into retirement. In order to establish a claim under a disparate treatment theory, "[p]roof of discriminatory motive is critical, although it can in some situations be inferred from the mere fact of differences in treatment." Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324, 329, n.15 52 L. Ed. 2d 396, 97 S. Ct. 1843 ...