A recent Minnesota District Court case contains some helpful reminders on how an employer can obtain summary judgment on an age discrimination claim. At issue were three employees, who had all ranked well on use of mold makers, but who ranked in the bottom half in the ability to use computer numerical control machines, on which they had never trained. When the employer lost several important clients who had used this older technology, it made the determination to terminate these three employees. The Court was satisfied that the employees met the initial burden of proof of a prima facie case, including that age was a factor in the layoffs, based primarily on the fact that these were the oldest full-time mold makers at the employer. However, the Court was satisfied that the employer articulated a non-discriminatory reason for the discharge, and the employees could provide no substantial evidence of age discrimination to prove the pretext that age discrimination was a “determinate factor” in their decision. The Court reminded plaintiffs that it does not sit as a super-personnel department to second guess the wisdom of business’ personnel decisions, and that employers do not need to show financial distress in making layoff decisions. An employer can make decisions based upon poor job performance, erroneous evaluations, personal conflicts between employees, or even unsound business practices so long as they do not result in discrimination based on age or other protected class. Rahlf, et al. v. Mo-Tech Corporation, Inc. (Minn. D.C. 2009).