Three Dealer Business Managers (DBMs) were long-term employees at Circle K: Brian Caldrone (54), Joseph Celusta (56), and Kathleen Staats (57). Each had a history of strong performance evaluations, awards and wanted to advance to regional leadership roles.
In 2020, Circle K’s West Coast Regional Director position became vacant. In the past, Circle K had posted position openings internally or circulated announcements by email or intranet to encourage qualified employees to apply. This time, the company did not post or open the position for applications. Instead, Circle K’s senior management handpicked a younger employee, aged 45, to fill the position. Angeles had previously served as the Southeast Regional Director, though he had a mixed performance record in that role.
When the three DBMs learned of the promotion, they believed that the company had bypassed its normal process to promote a younger employee. They sued Circle K in California state court for age discrimination under both the ADEA and FEHA. Circle K removed the case to the U.S. district court.
The district court granted summary judgment for Circle K, holding that the DBMs could not establish age discrimination because they had not applied for the position. The court also found that, even if they could establish age discrimination, Circle K had provided a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its decision, and the DBMs had not shown that this reason was pretextual.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed. The Ninth Circuit held that, when an employer does not announce a vacancy or solicit applications, employees are not required to show that they applied for the position to establish age discrimination. The Court also clarified that, although a ten-year age difference is the usual threshold for a “substantial” age gap, the DBMs could overcome a smaller gap by providing evidence that age was a significant factor in the employer’s decision. The Court found that the DBMs had presented sufficient evidence to create a triable issue of pretext and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Caldrone, et al. v. Circle K Stores, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 25766 (9th Circuit 2025).