The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has affirmed the dismissal of an age discrimination lawsuit filed by a 60-year-old man against a Virginia municipality, ruling that the plaintiff failed to prove the town's stated hiring reasons were pretextual.
In *Jeffrey Allen Turner v. Town of Narrows* (4th Cir. 2026), the appeals court upheld a district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Town of Narrows. Chief Judge Diaz wrote the unanimous opinion for a three-judge panel that included Judges Wynn and Harris.
The case arose when Jeffrey Turner applied for the position of Parks and Recreation Director with the Town of Narrows. At the time of his application, Turner was 60 years old and fell within the protected class under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, which covers individuals who are at least 40 years of age.
The town interviewed Turner for the position but ultimately decided to hire another candidate who was in his early twenties. Following his rejection, Turner filed a federal lawsuit alleging that the town's hiring decision constituted age discrimination in violation of the ADEA.
The legal framework for age discrimination claims requires plaintiffs to prove that age was the "but-for" cause of the adverse employment action. Under this standard, the plaintiff must show that the employer would not have taken the negative action if the employee's age had been different.
In employment discrimination cases, courts typically apply the burden-shifting framework established in *McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green*. Under this analysis, a plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination. If successful, the burden shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the employment action. The burden then shifts back to the plaintiff to prove that the employer's stated reason is merely pretext for discrimination.
The Town of Narrows defended its hiring decision by arguing that the younger candidate simply performed better during the interview process. The municipality maintained that its decision was based solely on the candidates' relative interview performance, not on Turner's age.
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia, presided over by Chief District Judge Elizabeth K. Dillon, granted summary judgment in favor of the town. The district court found that Turner had failed to demonstrate that the town's explanation for its hiring decision was pretextual.
On appeal to the Fourth Circuit, Turner challenged the district court's ruling, arguing that he had presented sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether age discrimination motivated the town's decision.
However, the Fourth Circuit disagreed. In its unpublished opinion dated Jan. 28, 2026, the appeals court found that Turner had not established that the town's proffered reason for hiring the younger candidate was pretext for age discrimination.
"We agree that Turner failed to establish pretext," Chief Judge Diaz wrote in the opinion. "And without it, Turner can't prove that age was the but-for cause of his rejection."
The court's reasoning centered on the fundamental requirement that plaintiffs in age discrimination cases must show their age was the determining factor in the employer's decision. Without evidence that the town's stated reason was false or that age actually motivated the hiring decision, Turner could not meet this burden.
The Fourth Circuit's decision reflects the challenging standard plaintiffs face in age discrimination cases. Unlike other forms of employment discrimination where mixed-motive theories may apply, age discrimination claims under the ADEA require proof that age was the but-for cause of the adverse action.
The case also highlights the difficulty of proving pretext in hiring decisions, where employers often have discretion to make subjective judgments about candidates based on interview performance and other qualitative factors. Courts generally defer to employers' hiring decisions unless there is clear evidence that the stated reasons are fabricated or that discriminatory animus actually motivated the decision.
Turner was represented by Thomas E. Strelka of Virginia Employment Law in Roanoke. The Town of Narrows was represented by Jeremy E. Carroll and Julian F. Harf of Spilman Thomas & Battle, PLLC, also based in Roanoke.
The Fourth Circuit issued its decision as an unpublished opinion, which means it does not establish binding precedent within the circuit. However, the ruling provides guidance on how courts evaluate pretext in age discrimination cases involving hiring decisions.
The decision underscores the importance for age discrimination plaintiffs to present concrete evidence that an employer's stated reasons for adverse employment actions are false or that age actually influenced the decision-making process. Mere suspicion or the fact that a younger candidate was selected is typically insufficient to prove discrimination without additional supporting evidence.
For employers, the ruling reinforces the importance of documenting legitimate business reasons for employment decisions and ensuring that hiring processes focus on job-related qualifications rather than age-related factors.
The case number is No. 25-1298, and the appeal originated from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia case number 7:23-cv-00371-EKD-CKM.