Free Proposed Jury Instructions - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:04-cv-01067-MSK-CBS

Document 117-6

Filed 05/26/2006

Page 1 of 3

Pa t 'C mp t gIs u t n2 lnis o ei n t co 7 if f n r i (ADEA--Methods of Proof) A plaintiff may raise an inference of discriminatory intent under the ADEA by offering evidence of a statement that is: 1 2 3 issue, and 4 Related to the employment decision at issue. Age-related, Close in time to the employment decision challenged, Made by an individual with authority over the employment decision at

This is called direct evidence. Direct evidence is explicit proof of discrimination, in the form of statements or policies that clearly show that an unlawful motive was a motivating factor in an employment decision. Plaintiff is not required to produce direct evidence of discriminatory intent. After all, Intentional discrimination is seldom admitted. It must normally be inferred from circumstantial evidence, that is, the existence of other facts tending to show that Pa t 'a ew s r le ta n t moi t gfc rnD fn a t a t n lnis g a moe i l h n o a tai a t i ee d n' co s if f ky v n o s i against him. A plaintiff may raise an inference of discriminatory animus under the ADEA by offering circumstantial evidence comparing himself to younger, similarly situated individuals who are treated more favorably. Another form of such circumstantial evidence is proof that the reason given for tee l e'a t na a s tep i is false, that is, a pretext, for discrimination. h mp y r co g i th ln o s i n a tiff

Case 1:04-cv-01067-MSK-CBS

Document 117-6

Filed 05/26/2006

Page 2 of 3

Statements by decision-makers for the City that they terminated or refused reinstate full monetary relief to Plaintiff because of his age would be direct evidence of age discrimination. This is an unusual case, in that Plaintiff has introduced direct evidence to prove that the City refused to reinstate him or grant him full monetary relief because of his age. The direct evidence on which Plaintiff relies is the Civil Service Commission Hearing Officer' and the Civil Service Commission' e pc rln eu o t fact s , s x li ea c p n he , it i Plaintiff is over 50 years old to justify their refusal to reinstate him as a firefighter, or grant him full monetary relief in the place or reinstatement. If you find that Plaintiff has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that, if he had been younger, or under 40, Defendant City would not have terminated him, you must find that his termination constituted unlawful age discrimination. Likewise, if you find that Plaintiff has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that, if he had been younger, or under 40, the City would have reinstated him and/or granted him full monetary relief after deciding that he did not commit the offense used to justify his termination, you must find thath Cts eu a t ri tt h o oh r i te i'rfs l e s e i r tews y o na m e grant him full monetary relief for his termination constituted unlawful age discrimination. I should remind you that the ADEA only prohibits discrimination against Plaintiff because of his age. You may not find that the Defendant committed age discrimination j t e a s y ufe Pa t 'tr n t no i bi t g t ij b c o wnoh r u b c u e o e l lnis emi i rn iy o e h o a k r i te s if f ao al t s b monetary relief was unfair. You must find that his age was a motivating factor in D fn a t a t n a a st him. ee d n' co s g i s i n

Case 1:04-cv-01067-MSK-CBS

Document 117-6

Filed 05/26/2006

Page 3 of 3

th

Authority: Brown v. CSC Logic, Inc., 82 F.3d 651, 655 (5 Cir. 1996)(citing
th

Turner v. North American Rubber, Inc., 979 F.2d 55, 59 (5 Cir. 1992); Mitchell v.
th

Toledo Hosp., 964 F.2d 577, 583 (6 Cir. 1992).