ÿWPCº }r'’ÏX^©E£ ¨"­¡#xŠ ŸªI™§¡ÐmŽ|Pò•Å4^búù7v0î©g©–°„F›‰itß9ÆX9`¹ ;qÿ¤Ö%ˆø9ìt›Ò+žNk1a«¬b™1Pˆ‰7ð(ü»àRÃÇiyxvŒÚ01µîˆ ˆ@ŠÕ´o‰tFkñ9ý'$U0³Lidò@÷o“¢é·‰‚ïlšéb·Jtñ`l‚\²$Â$¸N[.¹VAd|ØÕœ+x"©'H•´: Š61U²IÍVòPS©ž²öPôÓr_ÜeΙ*[‘.5þÈÀ"ÌÑžÂÉgkǨ·eVlfYt"H©ÊÆk([fÞZÙob0ÕNä%`7ŽÒŽqÊ»|!ÚãõœEØý+4ΑLÊ æò9^7DÅ<NØõ>¦]{ŒJ:( [íò¶J±„ç²p\\QÖ*°÷òëŽðÐñ¼y’`Ãæº"ºì¦Ê?|ÓY„§]]MúÖ¹m½A'avüXŠuË_sU0꺰“ìÀ[7Æö+í0ˆ §7… L’ý9CîMÊ  š~3nQF€r±€Y-ò­Ò;£ú»Ò þÊA{B¡é0(µ5ŽJ‹ÎlÅzéýµZ˜”š2˜[˜b %\^ b 0ˆnUNöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÁÐ Ð Æ‘ ÆW Æ Æã ã N©©©E««««««««««««««««««««««««b­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ 0ëµµµµ B   0¤½ D5a D-– 0KÃà ASÆa 0¤' 0DË A«»,ƒo+s (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular8n_+3|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5- ù-(|G27Ø$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€%»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¡}ò»»Ô d(|3b$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€%»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3b$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€%»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€%»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼%»»»ÔÑ8€JùXXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñ€€à@ü ü ìàÔ‡î´î»¼%ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼%»îî´#ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓAugust€7,€2001€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XJùX»¼%ÔÌò òÔ#†¼%»XXJùõ#ÔF.€RAY€WHITE€v.€REGIONS€FINANCIAL€CORPORATIONÔ‡XJùX»¼%Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Davidson€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€99C„263€€Barbara€N.€Haynes,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2000„02957„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€November€15,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓIn€this€appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Davidson€County,€the€Plaintiff/Appellant,€F.€Ray€White,Ð xÈ  Ðcontends€that€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€granting€the€Defendant/Appellee,€Regions€FinancialÐ d´ ÐCorporation,€a€summary€judgment€against€him€with€regard€to€his€cause€of€action€for€ageÐ P  Ðdiscrimination€under€the€Tennessee€Human€Rights€Act.€We€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€Trial€CourtÐ <Œ Ðand€we€adjudge€costs€of€appeal€against€Mr.€White€and€his€surety.€€€Ð (x ÐÓ¨ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Affirmed;ó óÐ P Ðò òCause€RemandedÐ ì< Ðó óÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼%»àXJùh#ÔÔ‡XJùX.¼%ÔHouston€M.€Ô_ÔGoddardÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔP.J.Ô_Ôóó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòHerschel€P.€Franks,óó€andÐ Ä ÐòòD.€Michael€Ô_ÔSwineyÔ_Ôóó,€JJ.,€joined.Ð ° ÐÌStanley€A.€Ô_ÔKwellerÔ_Ô,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellant,€F.€Ray€White.Ð ˆØ ÐÌBarbara€J.€Moss,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellee,€Regions€Financial€Corporation.Ð `° ÐÓuÓÌò òÌOPINIONÐ $"t! ÐÓ  Óà  àÌà  àó ó€This€case€arises€out€of€an€age€discrimination€action€filed€by€the€Plaintiff/Appellant,€F.ò ò€ó óRayÐ ü#L# ÐWhite,€against€his€employer,€the€Defendant/Appellant,€Regions€Financial€Corporation€(hereinafterÐ ì$< $ Ð'Regions'),€in€the€Circuit€Court€for€Davidson€County.€€Mr.€White€contends€that€the€Trial€Court€erredÐ Ø%(!% Ðin€granting€Regions's€motion€for€summary€judgment.€€Because€we€find€no€evidence€in€the€record€thatÐ Ä&"& Ðraises€a€genuine€issue€of€material€fact€with€respect€to€whether€Regions€engaged€in€acts€of€ageÐ °'#' Ðdiscrimination€against€Mr.€White€we€affirm€the€ruling€of€the€Trial€Court.Ð œ(ì#( ÐÌà  àIn€April€of€1994€Mr.€White,€then€fifty€six€years€of€age,€was€hired€by€First€Security€Bank€asÐ t*Ä%* Ða€vice€president€in€its€department€of€sales€and€finance€with€regard€to€automobile€loans.€€Mr.€WhiteÐ `+°&+ Ðwas€assigned€an€area€of€responsibility€consisting€of€Nashville€and€that€portion€of€Middle€TennesseeÐ L,œ', Ðwithin€a€one€hundred€mile€radius€of€Nashville.Ð 8-ˆ(-ý ÐÔ_Ô‡à  àIn€April€of€1997€Regions€Financial€Corporation€took€control€of€First€Security€Bank€at€whichÐ ° Ðtime€First€Security€changed€its€name€to€Regions€Financial€Corporation.€€In€the€early€part€of€1997€Mr.Ð œì ÐWhite€was€advised€that€Regions€would€be€consolidating€its€Nashville€office€with€its€other€businessÐ ˆØ Ðoffices€and€centralizing€its€automobile€finance€department€in€Birmingham,€Alabama.€€As€aÐ tÄ Ðconsequence€of€this€consolidation€and€centralization€the€automobile€finance€office€in€Nashville€wasÐ `° Ðto€be€eliminated.€€Accordingly,€Regions€offered€Mr.€White€an€alternative€position€in€Nashville€asÐ L œ Ða€business€development€officer€in€automobile€credit€services.€€Mr.€White€accepted€Regions's€offerÐ 8 ˆ Ðin€March€of€1997€and€on€June€26,€1997,€he€met€with€Charles€Hall€and€Ronald€Luth,€two€senior€viceÐ $ t Ðpresidents€for€Regions€to€discuss€the€transition€to€his€new€position.€€In€the€course€of€this€meeting€Mr.Ð  ` ÐWhite€was€advised€that€in€his€new€job€he€would€be€responsible€for€developing€business€in€the€regionÐ ü L  Ðof€Nashville€and€Middle€Tennessee€expanding€in€the€future€to€Chattanooga€and€Knoxville.€€Mr.Ð è 8  ÐWhite€was€also€advised€of€the€planned€procedure€for€changing€his€compensation€from€salary€toÐ Ô$  Ðsalary€with€commission.€€Finally,€Mr.€White€was€assigned€sales€goals€of€$3,000,000.00€per€monthÐ À  Ðfor€the€first€six€months,€increasing€to€$5,000,000.00€per€month€for€the€next€six€months,€and€then€toÐ ¬ü  Ð$7,000,000.00€per€month€thereafter.€€Mr.€White€testified€that,€at€the€time€of€the€meeting,€he€thoughtÐ ˜è  Ðthese€sales€goals€were€reasonable€and€reachable.Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àMr.€White€concedes€that€over€the€next€twelve€months€„€July,€1997€to€July,€1998€„€he€was€notÐ \¬ Ðsuccessful€in€any€month€in€reaching€the€sales€goals€accepted€by€him€at€the€meeting€of€June€26,€1997.€Ð H˜ ÐDuring€this€period€various€discussions€took€place€between€Mr.€White€and€Mr.€Hall€regarding€the€factÐ 4„ Ðthat€Regions's€sales€expectations€were€not€being€met.€Furthermore,€while€an€annual€review€of€Mr.Ð  p ÐWhite's€performance€prepared€by€Mr.€Hall€in€November€of€1997€showed€that€Mr.€White's€jobÐ  \ Ðperformance€was€acceptable,€it€also€noted€the€necessity€of€meeting€the€$3,000,000.00€per€monthÐ øH Ðsales€volume€level.€€Another€review€of€Mr.€White's€performance€was€prepared€by€Mr.€Hall€inÐ ä4 ÐFebruary€of€1998€and€in€that€review,€although€Mr.€White€was€rated€as€exceeding€requirements€inÐ Ð  Ðmost€areas€of€performance,€he€was€rated€as€needing€improvement€in€the€area€of€sales.€€The€FebruaryÐ ¼  Ðreview€further€noted€that€Mr.€White€had€never€met€the€minimum€sales€volume€base€of€$3,000,000.00Ð ¨ø Ðper€month.Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àOn€July€9,1998,€Mr.€Hall€and€Mr.€Luth€met€with€Mr.€White€and€presented€him€with€aÐ l¼ Ðperformance€memorandum€setting€forth€his€monthly€sales€volume€for€the€months€of€August,€1997Ð X ¨ Ðthrough€June,€1998.€€The€performance€memorandum€showed€that,€with€respect€to€the€eleven€monthsÐ D!” Ðcovered,€€Mr.€White€did€not€reach€sales€of€$2,000,000.00€in€any€single€month€and€that,€for€five€ofÐ 0"€  Ðthe€months€shown,€his€sales€were€below€$1,000,000.00€per€month.€€Mr.€Hall€advised€Mr.€White€atÐ #l! Ðthis€meeting€that€if€his€sales€volume€did€not€increase€to€the€previously€assigned€rate€of€$5,000,000.00Ð $X" Ðper€month€by€September€of€that€year,€his€employment€with€Regions€would€be€terminated.Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àAs€of€October€1,1998,€Mr.€White's€monthly€sales€volume€had€not€increased€to€the€levelÐ Ì&"% Ðdemanded€by€Regions€and€on€October€2,€1998,€Regions€terminated€his€employment.€€Mr.€White€wasÐ ¸'#& Ðsixty€years€of€age€at€the€time.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àAfter€Mr.€White's€termination€the€area€of€Tennessee€which€had€been€his€responsibility€wasÐ |*Ì%) Ðreassigned€to€Terrence€Brown,€another€of€Regions's€business€development€officers,€who€was€underÐ h+¸&* Ðforty€years€of€age€at€the€time.€€As€a€result€of€this€reassignment,€Mr.€Brown€was€now€responsible€forÐ ° Ðthe€Tennessee€territory€formerly€covered€by€Mr.€White€as€well€as€the€area€of€Northern€Alabama€forÐ œì Ðwhich€Mr.€Brown€had€previously€been€responsible.€€Mr.€Brown's€sales€goal€for€Northern€AlabamaÐ ˆØ Ðwas€set€at€$7,000,000.00€at€the€time€and€was€not€increased€by€Regions€when€he€was€assigned€theÐ tÄ Ðadditional€territory€in€Tennessee.€€Ð `° ÐÌà  àOn€January€29,1999,€Mr.€White€filed€a€complaint€in€the€Circuit€Court€for€Davidson€CountyÐ 8 ˆ Ðasserting€that€Regions€had€violated€the€Tennessee€Human€Rights€Act€by€terminating€him€becauseÐ $ t Ðof€his€age.€€Thereafter,€on€August€30,€2000,€€Regions€filed€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€whichÐ  ` Ðwas€heard€by€the€Trial€Court€on€October€13,€2000.€€The€Trial€Court€entered€its€order€grantingÐ ü L  ÐRegions€a€summary€judgment€on€November€1,€2000,€and€on€November€21,€2000,€€€Mr.€White€filedÐ è 8  Ðhis€notice€of€appeal.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð Ô$  Ðà  àÌà  àThe€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€restated€the€standard€of€review€with€respect€to€summaryÐ ¬ü  Ðjudgments€as€follows€in€òòStaples€v.€CBL€&€Associates,€Inc.,€óó15€S.W.3d€83,€89€(Tenn.€2000):Ð ˜è  ÐÌÒ€°ÒÒ€°ÒThe€standards€governing€the€assessment€of€evidence€in€the€summary€judgmentÐ pÀ Ðcontext€are€also€well€established.€€Courts€must€review€the€evidence€in€the€lightÐ \¬ Ðmost€favorable€to€the€nonmoving€party€and€must€also€draw€all€reasonableÐ H˜ Ðinferences€in€the€nonmoving€party's€favor.€€See€òòRobinson€v.€Omeróó,€952€S.W.2dÐ 4„ Ð[423]at€426;€€òòByrd€v.€Hall,€óó847€S.W.2d€[208]€at€210„211.€€Courts€should€grant€aÐ  p Ðsummary€judgment€only€when€both€the€facts€and€the€inferences€to€be€drawn€fromÐ  \ Ðthe€facts€permit€a€reasonable€person€to€reach€only€one€conclusion.€€See€òòMcCall€v.Ð øH ÐWilderóó,€913€S.W.2d€150,€153€(Tenn.1995);€€òòCarvell€v.€Bottomsóó,€900€S.W.2d€23,26Ð ä4 ÐTenn.1995).€€[Case€names€not€italicized€in€original].€€€€òò€óó€€Ð Ð  ÐÌÒ°€ÒÒ°€Òà  àA€Trial€Court's€decision€to€grant€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€is€solely€a€matter€of€lawÐ ¨ø Ðand€is,€therefore,€not€entitled€to€a€presumption€of€correctness.€See€òòCarvell€v.€Bottomsóó,€900€S.W.2dÐ ”ä Ð23€(Tenn.1995).€€In€determining€whether€such€a€decision€is€appropriate€we€must€review€the€recordÐ €Ð Ðto€determine€if€the€requirements€of€Rule€56(b)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure€have€beenÐ l¼ Ðsatisfied€in€that€"there€is€no€genuine€issue€as€to€any€material€fact€and€that€the€moving€party€is€entitledÐ X ¨ Ðto€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law."€Ð D!” ÐÌà  àMr.€White's€claim€of€age€discrimination€in€this€case€is€asserted€under€the€Tennessee€HumanÐ #l! ÐRights€Act€which€is€codified€at€T.C.A.€4„21„101€òòet€seq.óó€€At€T.C.A.€4„21„401€the€Act€specificallyÐ $X" Ðprovides€that€it€is€a€discriminatory€practice€to€discharge€any€person€because€of€their€age.€Ð ô$D # ÐRecognizing€that€the€stated€purpose€of€the€Act,€as€expressed€at€T.C.A.€42„21„101(a)(1),€is€to€provideÐ à%0!$ Ðfor€execution€in€Tennessee€of€the€policies€embodied€in€the€federal€civil€rights€laws,€the€SupremeÐ Ì&"% ÐCourt€of€our€state€has€determined€that€case€law€under€Title€VII€of€the€Civil€Rights€Act€of€1964Ð ¸'#& Ðapplies€in€analyzing€claims€brought€under€the€Tennessee€Human€Rights€Act.€€See€òòCampbell€v.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐFlorida€Steel€Corp.óó,€919€S.W.2d€26€(Tenn.€1996).Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àIn€òòMcDonnell€Douglas€Corp.€v.€Greenóó,€411€U.€S.€792,€93€S.€Ct.1817€(1973),€a€case€involvingÐ ° Ðâ âasserted€violations€of€the€Civil€Rights€Act€of€1964,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€presented€theÐ œì Ðanalytical€framework€to€be€applied€in€cases€such€as€the€one€now€before€us,€where€allegations€ofÐ ˆØ Ðdiscrimination€are€not€based€on€direct€evidence.€€Under€the€burden€shifting€analysis€set€forth€inÐ tÄ ÐòòMcDonnell,€óóas€applied€to€a€cause€of€action€for€age€discrimination,€the€plaintiff€must€establish€a€òòprimaÐ `° Ðfacieóó€case€by€proving€the€following:€(1)€that€he€was€at€least€forty€years€of€age€at€the€time€of€theÐ L œ Ðalleged€discrimination€(2)€that€he€was€subject€to€adverse€employment€action€(3)€that€he€was€qualifiedÐ 8 ˆ Ðfor€the€position€and€(4)€that€he€was€replaced€by€a€younger€person.€€See€òòCooley€v.€Carmike€Cinemas,Ð $ t ÐInc.óó,€25€F.3d€1325€(6th€Cir.€1994).€Ð  ` ÐÌà  à€If€the€plaintiff€is€able€to€prove€a€òòprima€facie€óócase€the€burden€then€shifts€to€the€defendant€whoÐ è 8  Ðis€required€to€submit€some€legitimate,€nondiscriminatory€reason€for€its€action.€€Once€the€defendantÐ Ô$  Ðmeets€this€burden€the€plaintiff€is€required€to€prove€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€that€the€reasonÐ À  Ðproffered€by€the€defendant€for€its€action€was€not€the€actual€reason,€but€was€merely€a€pretext€forÐ ¬ü  Ðillegitimate€discrimination.€€The€plaintiff€is€required€to€show€pretext€by€establishing€by€aÐ ˜è  Ðpreponderance€of€evidence€"either€(1)€that€the€proffered€reasons€had€no€basis€òòin€fact€óó(2)€that€theÐ „Ô  Ðproffered€reasons€did€not€òòactuallyòòóóóó€motivate€his€discharge,€or€(3)€that€they€were€òòinsufficientóó€toÐ pÀ Ðmotivate€discharge."€€See€òòManzer€v.€Diamond€Shamrock€Chemicals€Companyóó,€29€F3d€1078€(6th€Cir.Ð \¬ Ð1994),€quoting€òòMcNabola€v.€Chicago€Transit€Authorityóó,€10€F.3dòò€óó501,€513€(7th€Cir.€1993),€emphasisÐ H˜ Ðin€òòManzer.óóÐ 4„ ÐÌà  àUnder€the€facts€presented€in€this€appeal,€Regions€maintains€that€Mr.€White's€employment€wasÐ  \ Ðterminated,€not€because€of€his€age,€but€because€he€did€not€meet€previously€agreed€upon€sales€volumeÐ øH Ðgoals.€€In€order€to€establish€that€Regions's€explanation€was€pretext€under€the€first€of€the€threeÐ ä4 Ðalternatives€set€forth€above€„€'the€proffered€reasons€had€no€basis€òòin€factóó'€„€Mr.€White€would€beÐ Ð  Ðrequired€to€produce€evidence€that€the€proffered€basis€for€his€discharge€did€not€occur.€See€òòManzer,Ð ¼  Ðibid.€€óóHowever,€Mr.€White€concedes€that€his€sales€volume€never€met€the€goals€which€he€and€RegionsÐ ¨ø Ðagreed€to.€Accordingly,€Mr.€White€does€not€establish€pretext€under€the€first€alternative.€€€€€€€€€Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àUnder€the€second€alternative€for€showing€pretext€„€'the€proffered€reason€did€not€òòactuallyóóÐ l¼ Ðmotivate€the€employee's€discharge€„€€Mr.€White€would€be€required€to€produce€circumstantialÐ X ¨ Ðevidence€of€age€discrimination€€òòin€additionóó€to€that€necessary€to€produce€a€òòprima€facie€óócase.€UnderÐ D!” Ðthis€alternative€Mr.€White€must€submit€circumstantial€evidence€of€age€discrimination,€the€sheerÐ 0"€  Ðweight€of€which€would€make€it€more€likely€than€not€that€Regions's€ostensible€reason€for€terminatingÐ #l! Ðhis€employment€was€a€cover€up.€See€òòManzer,€ibid.óó€From€our€review€of€the€record€we€do€not€find€thatÐ $X" ÐMr.€White€has€presented€any€circumstantial€evidence€of€age€discrimination€that€would€show€pretextÐ ô$D # Ðunder€this€second€alternative.Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àIt€appears€to€us€that€Mr.€White€has€chosen€the€third€alternative€for€establishing€pretext.€€ThisÐ ¸'#& Ðmeans€of€€proving€pretext€„€showing€that€the€reason€proffered€was€òòinsufficient€óóto€motivate€discharge€„Ð ¤(ô#' Ðrequires€production€of€"evidence€that€other€employees,€particularly€employees€not€in€the€protectedÐ )à$( Ðâ âclass,€were€not€fired€even€though€they€engaged€in€substantially€identical€conduct€to€that€which€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðemployer€contends€€motivated€its€discharge€of€the€plaintiff."€€See€òòManzer,€ibid.€€óóIn€the€case€ofòòóóÐ ° ÐòòMitchell€v.€Toledo€Hosp.,€óó964€F.2d€577,€583€€(6th€cir.1992)€the€Court€noted€as€follows:Ð œì Ðâ âÌThus,€to€be€deemed€"similarly„situated",€the€individuals€with€whom€the€plaintiff€seeks€to€compareÐ tÄ Ðhis/her€treatment€must€have€dealt€with€the€same€supervisor,€have€been€subject€to€the€same€standardsÐ `° Ðand€have€engaged€in€the€same€conduct€without€such€differentiating€or€mitigating€circumstances€thatÐ L œ Ðwould€distinguish€their€conduct€or€the€employer's€treatment€of€them€for€it.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àSee€also,€òòVersa€v.€Policy€Studies,€Inc.€,€óó45€S.W.3d€575€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2000).Ð  ` ÐÌà  àAs€€stated,€upon€terminating€Mr.€White's€employment,€Regions€re„assigned€his€geographicalÐ è 8  Ðarea€of€responsibility,€which€was€located€in€Tennessee,€to€Terrence€Brown,€another€businessÐ Ô$  Ðdevelopment€officer€employed€by€Regions€who€was€under€forty€years€of€age€at€the€time.€€Mr.€WhiteÐ À  Ðasserts,€and€the€record€confirms,€that,€although€Mr.€Brown€also€failed€to€meet€the€sales€goals€set€forÐ ¬ü  Ðthe€same€area€of€Tennessee,€Mr.€Brown€was€not€discharged.€€Mr.€White€further€attests€that€he€wasÐ ˜è  Ðnot€aware€of€any€business€development€officer€either€at€Regions€or€at€any€other€bank€where€he€hadÐ „Ô  Ðworked€in€the€past,€who€had€been€terminated€for€failing€to€meet€sales€performance€goals.€€Mr.€WhiteÐ pÀ Ðargues€that€this€evidence,€coupled€with€the€fact€that€he€was€the€oldest€and€highest€paid€businessÐ \¬ Ðdevelopment€officer€at€Regions€at€the€time,€is€sufficient€for€a€jury€to€infer€that€he€was€terminatedÐ H˜ Ðbecause€of€his€age€and€that€the€reason€for€his€discharge€presented€by€Regions€was€pretextual.€€WeÐ 4„ Ðare€compelled€to€disagree.Ð  p ÐÌà  àA€comparison€of€Region's€treatment€of€Mr.€White€with€its€treatment€of€Mr.€Brown€€will€notÐ øH Ðsuffice€to€create€a€genuine€issue€with€respect€to€whether€Regions's€proffered€reason€for€dischargingÐ ä4 ÐMr.€White€was€a€pretext€because€these€two€employees€were€not€similarly€situated.€Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àTo€begin€with,€the€territory€assigned€to€Mr.€White€with€respect€to€which€he€failed€to€meet€hisÐ ¨ø Ðsales€goals€consisted€solely€of€Middle€and€Eastern€Tennessee.€€When€Mr.€Brown€failed€to€meet€theÐ ”ä Ðsame€sales€goal€for€that€region€of€Tennessee€he€was€additionally€responsible€for€his€original€salesÐ €Ð Ðterritory€in€Northern€Alabama.€€Therefore,€while€Mr.€White€was€in€a€position€to€devote€all€of€his€timeÐ l¼ Ðto€the€Tennessee€region€assigned€to€him,€Mr.€Brown€was€necessarily€allocating€his€time€betweenÐ X ¨ ÐTennessee€and€Northern€Alabama.€Mr.€Brown's€unrefuted€€testimony€is€that€only€thirty€five€to€fortyÐ D!” Ðper€cent€of€his€time€was€apportioned€to€Tennessee€and€€the€remainder€of€his€time€was€devoted€toÐ 0"€  ÐNorthern€Alabama.Ð #l! ÐÌà  àIn€addition,€Mr.€White€never€met€the€assigned€sales€goal€for€his€territory€for€òòanyóó€monthÐ ô$D # Ðduring€the€fifteen€months€of€his€employment€as€a€business€development€officer.€€In€contrast,€althoughÐ à%0!$ ÐMr.€Brown€did€not€meet€his€sales€goals€for€the€first€six€months€of€2000,€he€testified€withoutÐ Ì&"% Ðcontradiction€that€he€did€meet€his€sales€goals€for€seven€to€eight€months€of€1999.€We€recognize€thatÐ ¸'#& ÐMr.€Brown's€monthly€sales€goal€of€$7,000,000.00€for€Northern€Alabama€was€not€raised€by€RegionsÐ ¤(ô#' Ðwhen€he€assumed€Mr.€White's€territory€and€that€this€goal€was,€then,€arguably€easier€to€reach€becauseÐ )à$( Ðof€the€greater€potential€of€his€now€expanded€territory.€€However,€Mr.€Hall€testified€withoutÐ |*Ì%) Ðcontradiction€that,€subsequent€to€Mr.€White's€termination,€the€Tennessee€region€formerly€assignedÐ h+¸&* Ðto€Mr.€White€has€generated€maximum€monthly€sales€in€the€range€of€$2,000,000.00€to€$3,000,000.00.€Ð ° ÐThe€record€shows€that€Mr.€White's€maximum€sales€for€that€same€region€never€reached€$2,000,000.00Ð œì Ðper€month.€€€Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àFinally,€Mr.€White's€salary€at€Regions€at€the€time€of€his€discharge€was€$60,000.00€per€yearÐ `° Ðwhereas€Mr.€Brown's€annual€salary€at€that€time,€and€throughout€1999,€remained€less€than€$40,000.00Ð L œ Ðper€year.€€Mr.€White€presents€the€disparity€between€his€salary€and€that€of€Mr.€Brown€asÐ 8 ˆ Ðcircumstantial€evidence€that€the€actual€reason€for€his€discharge€was€not€his€sales€record€but,€rather,Ð $ t ÐRegions's€desire€to€replace€him€with€a€younger€employee€at€a€lower€salary.€It€is€our€determination,Ð  ` Ðhowever,€that€given€the€fact€that€Mr.White€was€not€meeting€Regions's€sales€expectations€and€hadÐ ü L  Ðnever€met€those€expectations€Regions€made€a€legitimate€non„discriminatory€business€decision€whenÐ è 8  Ðit€terminated€his€employment€and€assigned€his€duties€to€another€employee€at€a€lower€salary€and€Mr.Ð Ô$  ÐWhite€has€not€submitted€any€evidence€to€the€contrary.€€The€fact€that€Mr.€White€and€Mr.€BrownÐ À  Ðreceived€substantially€different€salaries€does,€on€the€other€hand,€show€that€these€two€employees€wereÐ ¬ü  Ðnot€similarly€situated€and€that€they€were,€€therefore,€not€comparable€for€the€purpose€of€establishingÐ ˜è  Ðthat€Regions's€proffered€reason€for€discharging€Mr.€White€was€insufficient.€€€Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àMr.€White€also€attests€that€he€is€unaware€of€any€business€development€officer€who€has€beenÐ \¬ Ðdischarged€by€Regions€for€failure€to€meet€sales€performance€goals€and€that€he€is€further€unaware€thatÐ H˜ Ðany€other€bank€with€which€he€has€worked€has€discharged€an€employee€in€that€position€for€failing€toÐ 4„ Ðmeet€such€sales€goals.€€However,€again,€Mr.€White€has€failed€to€demonstrate€that€any€of€theseÐ  p Ðemployees€with€whom€he€seeks€to€compare€himself€were€similarly€situated.€€For€this€reason,€if€noÐ  \ Ðother,€it€is€our€finding€that€these€assertions€will€not€suffice€to€create€a€genuine€factual€issue€as€toÐ øH Ðwhether€Regions's€proffered€reason€for€terminating€Mr.€White's€employment€was€pretextual.Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àIt€being€our€determination€that€Mr.€White€has€not€established€a€genuine€issue€with€regard€toÐ ¼  Ðwhether€the€reason€for€his€discharge€by€Regions€was€pretextual,€we€need€not,€and€do€not,€determineÐ ¨ø Ðwhether€Mr.€White€has€submitted€sufficient€evidence€to€overcome€a€summary€judgment€with€respectÐ ”ä Ðto€establishing€a€òòprima€facie€óócase€of€age€discrimination.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àFor€the€foregoing€reasons€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€and€remand€the€case€forÐ X ¨ Ðcollection€of€costs€below.€€Costs€of€appeal€are€adjudged€against€Mr.€White€and€his€surety.Ð D!” ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à_________________________________________Ð ô$D # Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àHOUSTON€M.€GODDARD,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÐ à%0!$ ÐÌÔ#†¼%»XXJù¤#Ô