Although a 60-year old sales manager established a prima facie case of age discrimination, his case was dismissed on summary judgment. The Eighth Circuit found that even though plaintiff may have “set forth sufficient evidence to reject Nextel’s explanations for termination … no rational fact finder could conclude Mayer’s termination was discriminatory because no evidence creates a reasonable inference that age was the determinative factor.”
A 53 year old employee was let go in a reduction-in-force. His duties were taken over by a younger worker. The fact that a younger person took over his duties is not enough to prove age discrimination.
Annual parties were held for current and former 25+ year employees. The Company told two employees not to show up because of their age discrimination lawsuit. When they showed up anyway, they were escorted out by security. Their retaliation claim failed since neither their professional or personal reputations were damaged.
The First Circuit found that an employer fired two employees in “an insensitive overreaction to a series of minor transgressions.” However, the entire age discrimination claim was that plaintiffs were over 40, fired and replaced with younger employees, who were also over 40. Finding no discriminatory intent, even though the jury was justified in disbelieving defendant’s stated reasons for firing plaintiffs, the First Circuit was compelled to overturn the large jury verdict.
Former supervisors inquiring about an employee’s retirement plans and the president’s concern about plaintiff’s age when making the decision to discharge did not provide enough evidence to try the case. The supervisors did not participate in the discharge decision and the president was being “prudent.”
The U.S. Supreme Court decided that the ADEA “does not mean to stop an employer from favoring an older employee over a younger one.’ Editor’s Note: Employers are now permitted to encourage older workers to accept exit packages by providing better packages for older workers. Some supervisors are likely to push some older workers to accept these packages; such coercion will likely result in more age discrimination cases. Supervisors must be trained how to talk with employees about exit packages in order to avoid such claims. Contact IET at 888-HR-TRAIN to discuss this further.
If a plaintiff demonstrates that age was a motivating factor in an employment decision, defendant must prove that it would have made the same decision regardless of age. The Fifth Circuit finds that no direct evidence need be shown in a mixed motive case.
An elementary school teacher was fired for 31 reasons grounded in unprofessional and insubordinate behavior. Because there was no concrete evidence that younger workers were treated more favorable and because the teacher could not prove that any of the 31 reasons were pretext for age discrimination, the age claim was dismissed on summary judgment.
Former managers terminated as part of a RIF complain that the Port Authority ignored its employment manuals and policy guidelines. The Second Circuit finds no contractual violation because of the unambiguous employment-at-will disclaimer.
The EEOC has issued final rules that relate to releases and the ADEA. Releases that require employees to return money before filing an age discrimination claim no longer bar an ADEA claim if the money is not “tendered back.”