Bialas v. Greyhound Lines

Greyhound Lines, Inc. (Greyhound) (defendant) engaged in extended efforts to reduce its labor force and increase its efficiency. As part of these efforts, Greyhound eliminated many job positions, including the accounting positions held by William Bialas, Edward Christensen, and Rollin Cate (terminated employees) (plaintiffs). Bialas’s position was consolidated with a similar position from a separate department. The 45-year-old Bialas was on probation and knew nothing about the other department. In contrast, the 33-year-old who held the position in the other department knew information about both departments. Greyhound terminated Bialas and retained the 33-year-old for the consolidated position. Similarly, 44-year-old Christensen’s position was eliminated through a consolidation, and a 43-year-old who allegedly had better skills took over Christensen’s duties. Finally, almost half of the 95 positions in 41-year-old Cate’s department had already been eliminated. Cate had a poor performance evaluation, and his position was eventually eliminated, too. Initially, Cate’s 43-year-old supervisor took over Cate’s duties. The supervisor later left, and an employee younger than Cate began handling Cate’s former duties. The terminated employees sued Greyhound for allegedly firing them based on their ages in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Specifically, the terminated employees claimed that Greyhound (1) had not engaged in a bona fide reduction in force and (2) had discriminated against them based on their ages because younger, lower-paid workers eventually took over all three sets of duties. The terminated employees argued that the ADEA existed to prevent managers from choosing younger workers with lower salary requirements at the expense of older workers. The district court granted summary judgment to Greyhound, and the terminated employees appealed.