Therese A. Gottermeyer v. Norstan, Inc.

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
File Name: 07a0500n.06
Filed: July 16, 2007
No. 06-4115
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
THERESE A. GOTTERMEYER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
NORSTAN, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
OPINION
Before: NORRIS, GILMAN, and SUTTON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM. Therese A. Gottermeyer worked for Norstan, Inc., a provider of voice and
data technology services, for 21 years. Norstan experienced significant financial losses as the high-
tech sector of the U.S. economy underwent a steep downturn beginning in 2001. To improve the
company’s financial bottom-line, Norstan embarked on a series of reductions-in-force (RIFs).
Gottermeyer was terminated from her position as a marketing communications director as part of the
first RIF in October of 2003. She was 59 years of age at the time. Under Norstan’s Workforce
Reduction Policy (WRP), Gottermeyer was eligible for job-placement assistance and severance pay
in exchange for a general release of all claims against the company. She refused to execute the
release as written. Norstan, in turn, refused to provide Gottermeyer with severance pay.

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 06-4115
Gottermeyer v. Norstan, Inc.
- 2 -
Gottermeyer filed a five-count complaint in federal district court on May 18, 2005. In Counts
One and Five, she alleged that her termination violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act
(ADEA) and Ohio’s law against age discrimination. Count Two alleged that Norstan’s WRP
violated the ADEA by requiring persons age 40 or older to waive rights to which younger people
were not entitled in order to receive similar benefits. In Count Three, Gottermeyer alleged that the
WRP violated the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA) because Norstan did not provide
workers aged 40 or older with specific consideration for their waiver of any ADEA claims in
addition to the benefits to which they were already entitled. Count Four alleged that the WRP
constituted a plan subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), and that the
WRP violated ERISA.
In July of 2006, the district court granted Norstan’s motion for summary judgment on all
claims. The district court concluded that Gottermeyer had failed to establish a prima facie case of
age discrimination. Specifically, Gottermeyer relied on the conclusory allegation that “a thorough
statistical analysis” of the 2003 RIF “demonstrates that age was at least a factor and potentially the
motivating factor in selecting which employees” would be terminated. But she never engaged an
expert witness to conduct such a statistical analysis, instead relying on her own calculation of the
percentages of age-protected workers who were considered for termination (70% of the total) and
of age-protected workers who were in fact selected for termination (75% of the total).
Norstan, in contrast, submitted a report by an expert witness that applied three widely
accepted statistical tests to the data (standard-deviation analysis, chi-square test, and Z test for single
samples). These tests all demonstrated that the difference between the percentage of terminated

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 06-4115
Gottermeyer v. Norstan, Inc.
- 3 -
workers who were age 40 or older and the percentage of older workers in the groups considered for
termination was not statistically significant.
Upon de novo review, we conclude that the material facts of this case are not in dispute, that
the district court properly applied the applicable law to the facts, and that for us to prepare a detailed
opinion would be duplicative of the district court’s efforts and would serve no useful jurisprudential
purpose. Accordingly, the challenged judgment is AFFIRMED on the basis of the district court's
well-reasoned opinion.

-- 3 of 3 --