Eleventh Circuit Clarifies ADEA Prima Facie Proof: Replacement by a Younger Employee Is Enough

In-Depth Commentary on Sharon Gallimore v. City of Opa-Locka, No. 23-12241 (11th Cir. Aug. 6, 2025)

1. Introduction

For the first time since its en banc decisions in Lewis v. City of Union City and Smith v. Lockheed-Martin, the Eleventh Circuit has squarely held that an age-discrimination plaintiff who is demoted or discharged and replaced by a markedly younger person need not identify a “similarly situated” comparator to establish a prima facie case under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The decision also re-affirms stringent limits on Title VII retaliation suits based solely on temporal proximity and gives renewed guidance on the “sham-affidavit” rule that prevents litigants from contradicting clear deposition testimony.

The case arises from the long-tenured career of former Assistant Chief of Police Sharon Gallimore, demoted and later separated from the City of Opa-Locka, Florida. Her lawsuit alleged age, gender, and retaliation claims. The district court granted summary judgment for the City across the board; the Court of Appeals partly reversed, resuscitating only the ADEA claim.

2. Summary of the Judgment

• ADEA Claim: Reversed and remanded. Gallimore produced enough evidence for a jury to infer that age bias motivated both her demotion and termination. Critical to the ruling: (a) she was replaced by someone under forty; (b) derogatory age-related remarks by elected officials; and (c) evidence undermining the City’s stated reasons.
• Title VII Retaliation: Affirmed. A two-month gap between her EEOC charge and termination, without other causal evidence, could not meet either the McDonnell Douglas test or the “convincing mosaic” pathway. Her later affidavit claiming she told HR about the charge was disregarded as a sham because it contradicted unequivocal deposition testimony.
• Title VII Gender Discrimination: Affirmed. Gallimore failed to show she was replaced by a man or treated less favorably than similarly situated male officers, and the record lacked a mosaic of sex-based animus.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) — The classic burden-shifting model frames all three claims. The court reiterates that plaintiffs can also bypass it via a “convincing mosaic.”
• Smith v. Lockheed-Martin, 644 F.3d 1321 (11th Cir. 2011) & Lewis v. City of Union City (Lewis I, 918 F.3d 1213 (en banc); Lewis II, 934 F.3d 1169) — Provide the “convincing mosaic” standard and a refined comparator analysis, both heavily applied.
• Damon v. Fleming Supermarkets, 196 F.3d 1354 (11th Cir. 1999) — Holds that a long-serving employee’s qualifications are presumed; used to satisfy the fourth prong of McDonnell Douglas.
• Thomas v. Cooper Lighting, 506 F.3d 1361 (11th Cir. 2007) & Johnson v. Miami-Dade County, 948 F.3d 1318 (11th Cir. 2020) — Establish that a gap of a few months is usually too long for temporal proximity alone to prove causation.
• Van T. Junkins & Associates v. U.S. Industries, 736 F.2d 656 (11th Cir. 1984) & Furcron v. Mail Centers Plus, 843 F.3d 1295 (11th Cir. 2016) — Form the basis for the sham-affidavit doctrine invoked to disregard Gallimore’s post-deposition statement.

3.2 Court’s Legal Reasoning

a) Retaliation. The panel applied the three-part McDonnell Douglas test. Gallimore established protected activity (EEOC charge) and an adverse act (termination) but failed the causation prong. Two months is not “very close,” and her only other evidence — the disputed affidavit — was struck under the sham-affidavit rule. On the mosaic approach, lack of proof that any decision-maker knew of her EEOC filing doomed the claim.

b) Gender Discrimination. Because Gallimore’s replacement was also female and she identified no materially similar male comparators, she could not make a prima facie case. Nor did the record reveal any sex-based comments or patterns constituting a mosaic.

c) Age Discrimination. This is where the decision breaks new ground. The court reasoned as follows:

1. Gallimore met all prima facie elements: (i) at least forty years old; (ii) demoted/terminated; (iii) replaced by someone mid-30s (outside the class); (iv) held the job successfully for 20+ years, so qualification is presumed under Damon.
2. The City articulated facially legitimate reasons: the Miami-Dade Police Department (MDPD) audit (demotion) and purported job abandonment (termination).
3. Pretext evidence:
   • Age-focused statements by the Mayor and Commissioners (“same old people,” “younger, more energetic leadership”).
   • Assurances from decision-maker John Pate that the MDPD audit would not affect her job.
   • Temporal incongruity — five months passed between the audit and demotion, undermining its plausibility as the true cause.
   • Evidence the City may have engineered her absence to claim abandonment.
4. Independently, even if the comparator-based test failed, the above proof created a “convincing mosaic.”

3.3 Impact of the Judgment

The ruling is poised to reverberate in several doctrinal areas:

• ADEA Litigation Simplified. Plaintiffs demoted or discharged and replaced by someone substantially younger can rely on that single fact — without naming male/female/age comparators — to clear the prima facie hurdle in the Eleventh Circuit.
• Comparator Inflation Checked. District courts sometimes dismiss ADEA suits for “lack of a comparator.” Gallimore clarifies that replacement by a younger employee itself satisfies the “outside the protected class” element.
• Sham-Affidavit Doctrine Strengthened. The panel’s willingness to exclude a key affidavit underscores the importance of consistent testimony and may deter litigants from late-stage factual reversals.
• Tightened Temporal-Proximity Rule. By reiterating that two months is insufficient for causation absent corroborating facts, the opinion offers employers clearer guidance on post-complaint personnel actions.
• Municipal Liability Signals. While the City may yet prevail at trial, the opinion warns local governments that overt ageist comments by elected officials can taint personnel decisions, even if the official decision-maker is an appointed manager.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Prima Facie Case: The starter evidence a plaintiff must show to shift the burden to the employer. Think of it as “raising a credible suspicion” of discrimination.
• McDonnell Douglas Framework: A three-step dance — (1) employee’s prima facie case, (2) employer’s legitimate reason, (3) employee’s proof the reason is a pretext.
• “Convincing Mosaic”: A collage of different clues — comments, statistics, timing — that, taken together, point to discrimination even if no single piece is decisive.
• Temporal Proximity: How close in time the protected act (e.g., EEOC filing) is to the adverse job action. Closer = more suspicious. Two weeks is good for plaintiffs; two months, usually not.
• Sham-Affidavit Rule: Courts may ignore a later affidavit if it directly contradicts earlier sworn testimony without explanation. Prevents “manufactured” factual disputes.
• Comparator: Another employee whose treatment is used as a yardstick. Must be alike in key job aspects so differences in treatment can be attributed to discrimination, not other factors.

5. Conclusion

Gallimore v. City of Opa-Locka is a cautionary tale for employers and a strategic blueprint for plaintiffs. It tightens the evidentiary reins on retaliation and sex-bias claims while simultaneously lowering the bar for ADEA plaintiffs who are replaced by significantly younger employees. The Eleventh Circuit’s message is two-fold:

1. Age discrimination can be inferred when older employees are supplanted by younger counterparts amid explicit age-related hostility, even if direct comparators are absent.
2. Retaliation claims require more than timing; factual consistency and proof of managerial knowledge are indispensable.

Moving forward, litigants in the Southeast must calibrate their summary-judgment strategies to this decision, and municipalities especially should train elected officials on the litigation risks of open-ended calls for “younger, more energetic” workforces.