Tag: Rules Plaintiff's

Sixth Circuit Rules Plaintiff's Age Discrimination Claim May Proceed to Trial The Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has announced that the claims of a former employee of age discrimination and retaliation by his employer, a major technology company, may proceed to trial. The plaintiff, a 54-year-old individual, was hired to develop training programs for the company's sales force. Throughout the first five years of his employment, his performance reviews were consistently positive, with managers providing notes that his work exceeded and significantly exceeded expectations. However, this changed when the plaintiff was transferred to a new group within the company. At this point, the plaintiff was 60 years of age and the oldest individual reporting to his manager. Evidence suggests that the plaintiff's relationship with this manager was strained. Under this new manager, the plaintiff's six-year streak of positive performance reviews was broken, and the plaintiff, for the first time, received a performance bonus of less than 30% with an 8% bonus and no raise. The plaintiff met with the manager and expressed his belief that the rating was due to age discrimination, and the manager stated that it was due to old skills. The manager also sarcastically referred to the plaintiff as "young man" on multiple instances throughout the meeting. In a subsequent meeting, the manager allegedly asked why the plaintiff was still here, and on at least 10 distinct occasions, the plaintiff asked the plaintiff when he was going to retire. The plaintiff was never offered any job duties under this manager other than acting in a supporting role, and the plaintiff complained to HR about the alleged age discrimination. After this, the plaintiff received the second-worst rating in the company on his next performance review. Eventually, the team under the manager was broken up, and the plaintiff was reassigned. This did not end the issue, however, and the plaintiff was subsequently assigned to another vice-president. This vice president then received a PowerPoint presentation indicating that the plaintiff had an unclear future. Soon after this, the vice-president informed the plaintiff that he would soon be fired. In response, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit alleging age discrimination and retaliation. The district court granted the employer summary judgment finding that the plaintiff had failed to present sufficient evidence that the termination resulted from age discrimination. The plaintiff appealed, and the Sixth Circuit reversed the judgment. In reviewing the case, the Sixth Circuit noted that in order to meet the requirements for a claim of age discrimination, he must show that age was a determinative influence in the decision-making process. This could be either directly or through indirect evidence that would allow a jury to infer that the decision resulted from unlawful discrimination. Because the plaintiff's case was based upon indirect evidence, it must meet a three-factor test. The first is that the evidence on its face indicates discrimination which the court found it easily did. The second step is for the employer to identify a nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment action, and the employer's reason, in this case, was that the employee's duties were capable of being handled by other employees. The third test is for the plaintiff to prove that the reason offered by the employer was pretextual. The court, in deciding whether the reason was pretextual, noted that employers are responsible for discrimination or retaliation on the part of a supervisor even if the supervisor is not the one who takes the adverse action. The court ultimately decided that the evidence was sufficient for a jury to conclude that the plaintiff's manager was a significant factor in the termination. Additionally, the court found that a jury could conclude that the plaintiff's age was a determinative influence in the decision to terminate him. As a result, the court reversed the district court's ruling. Employer Takeaways The court's decision demonstrates the importance of applying caution in broaching the topic of retirement as well as in making age-related comments. These discussions, particularly after a history of positive performance reviews, may easily be interpreted by a court as age discrimination. Stay updated on all the new rules of compliance with Pre-employs free news resources on employment eligibility. Contact a Sales Rep today for more information.

Tag: Rules Plaintiff's

Sixth Circuit Rules Plaintiff’s Age Discrimination Claim May Proceed to Trial

Our Process

Our Platform

Screenings

For Your Industry

For Your Role

Webinar

Resources Library

Logins

E-Book

Services

Industry

Resources

Our Company