10-14-2025
Three individuals sued Circle K Stores, Inc. for age discrimination, claiming that the company illegally denied them the opportunity to apply for a promotion. Brian Caldrone (age 54), Joseph Celusta (age 55), and Kathleen Staats (age 56) worked for Circle K as dealer business managers. They reported to a regional director. None of them had any documented performance issues. When the West Coast Regional Director position opened, they alleged the company did not give them the opportunity to apply for it through the usual open job board. Instead, they allege that the company hand-picked another employee (age 45).
The federal district court dismissed their age discrimination case against Circle K for unlawfully denying them the opportunity to apply for and secure the promotion based on their ages. To meet the first step of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination, the plaintiffs had to show that they sought the West Coast Regional Director position. The plaintiffs did not meet this standard. In addition, the less than 10-year age difference between the individual who got the position and Caldrone was too small to give rise to a presumption of discrimination.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s decision. Plaintiffs alleged that Circle K declined to accept applications for the position because it wanted to handpick a younger candidate. The employees alleged that the executive who purportedly selected the younger employee told Calderone that he was “out of touch” and “too old for this business.” This executive allegedly encouraged Celusta to consider retirement. Another director said he was pressured to remove “older employees for no reason.” This information, along with a few other allegations, created an issue of fact about whether Circle K considered age in making its promotion decision. The plaintiffs also produced evidence suggesting that Circle K’s decision not to advertise the West Coast position differed from its standard policy. The court found that a “ jury could infer that this deviation was an attempt to prevent plaintiffs from applying for the role.”