Sixth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Age Discrimination Claim

This morning, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of an age discrimination of a supervisor whose position has been eliminated in a reduction in force. Metz v. Titanium Metals Corp., No. 11- 3117 (6th Cir. 3-29-12). The Court concluded that employees laid off in a reduction in force have a higher standard of proof and cannot show that they were replaced by a younger individual when their duties were merely absorbed by the remaining employees. The Court also rejected the argument that references to the tenure and planned retirement of an older employee and the “new ideas” of the younger employee constituted direct evidence of age discrimination. Finally, the Court found nothing discriminatory in using a different standard to evaluate and compare employees for purposes of a RIF than is used in their annual performance evaluations.

According to the Court’s opinion, the plaintiff was a shipping supervisor who agreed to the promotion of a much younger supervisor to help him and an older supervisor when the company was experiencing record sales volume. At the time, the HR Manager indicated that the new employee would bring new ideas and might be able to replace the oldest supervisor when he retired in the near future (having already worked there for 42 years at that point). When the recession hit and sales volumes decreased dramatically, the company reduced costs by, among other things, reducing the number of shipping supervisors by one position. The company then evaluated all of the salaried employees and ranked them to determine which employees would be retained in the existing positions. The plaintiff ranked lower than his co-workers on this survey and was ultimately laid off.

The Court rejected the argument that the HR Manager’s comments constituted direct evidence of age discrimination. Tenure is not the same as age. References to the younger employee’s “new ideas” was ambiguous. Finally, mention of the planned retirement of the oldest employee did not constitute discrimination.

The Court also rejected the argument that the younger employee replaced the plaintiff because he had initially been promoted – with the plaintiff’s agreement – to help him. In addition, there was a reduction in the number of shipping supervisor position. Finally, the younger employee absorbed the plaintiff’s duties into his existing duties; they were not new duties.

Finally, the Court rejected the argument that management manipulated the RIF evaluation ratings to retain the younger employee over the plaintiff when they had traditionally received the same performance evaluation ratings. First, the employer retained the oldest shipping supervisor. There was also evidence that the plaintiff’s RIF rating was based in part because he “had occasionally been disrespectful toward management, had failed to be forthcoming about problems, and had failed to resolve conflicts among employees in [his] department.” Management had been unanimous in ranking the younger employee higher than him. The fact that their performance review ratings had been similar and the RIF evaluation was different was like comparing apples and oranges. One rated the employees against the same standard; one compared them to each other.

NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to different results. Information here can change or be amended without notice. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain an employment attorney.