Age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act; 29 USC § 623(a)(1); Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc.; Burden-shifting framework; McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green; Miles v. South Cent. Human Res. Agency, Inc.; Prima facie case; George v. Youngstown State Univ.; Alexander v. CareSource; Highfill v. City of Memphis (Unpub. 6th Cir.); Jackson v. VHS Detroit Receiving Hosp., Inc.; Romano v. Hudson City Sch. Dist. (Unpub. 6th Cir.); Brown v. City of Cleveland (Unpub. 6th Cir.); Hedrick v. Western Reserve Care Sys.; Pretext; Provenzano v. LCI Holdings, Inc.; Wexler v. White’s Fine Furniture, Inc.; Gray v. Toshiba Am. Consumer Prod., Inc.; Geiger v. Tower Auto.; The “cat’s paw” theory of discrimination; Staub v. Proctor Hosp.; Chattman v. Toho Tenax Am., Inc.

[This appeal was from the WD-MI.] The court affirmed summary judgment for defendant-employer (WestRock) in this age discrimination case where plaintiff-Flowers did not meet the job qualifications and, except for “age-based considerations, the ADEA does not empower job applicants to second-guess” a potential employer’s job qualifications. Flowers applied for a pipe-fitting job with WestRock. Based on factors relating to his prior employment, WestRock rejected his application without giving him an interview. Flowers, who was 71 years old, sued for age discrimination. The district court granted WestRock summary judgment, ruling that Flowers was not “otherwise qualified for the job” where he admitted that he could not read blueprints or select pipe sizes, and he had previously expressed an unwillingness to weld. The district court also determined that even if he had made his prima facie case, he failed to establish that WestRock’s reasons for not hiring him were pretextual. The court first held that Flowers failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination where he did not establish that he was “otherwise qualified” for the job. He countered that the abilities WestRock required where not really “necessary,” but the court declined to override an employer’s determination as to job requirements. It noted that while there may be cases where an employer’s alleged non-discriminatory considerations might hide discriminatory motives, that was likely not the situation here where Flowers admitted that “he lacks a specific skill or experience required by the employer.” The court found no indication that age discrimination factored into WestRock’s decision not to hire Flowers. Also, there was no evidence that WestRock hired “a virtually identical individual outside the protected class . . . .” His claim under the “cat’s paw” theory of discrimination was also unsuccessful. The court declined to apply the theory to a situation involving job applicants. Additionally, it noted that there was no evidence that the supervisors in this case engaged in age bias.