Sixth Circuit: Judgment for Employer is Affirmed on Sexual Harassment Claim When Investigation and Termination Was Handled Properly.

This morning, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment in favor of a hospitality industry employer on a sexual harassment claim when the employer properly investigated and terminated the employee. Balding-Margolis v. Cleveland Arcade d/b/a Hyatt Regency Cleveland, No. 09-3017 (11/10/09). Retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor was part of the panel which issued the decision. The plaintiff was a long-time waitress who was found to have violated many cash-handling procedures over a period of time, including rules against increasing the amount of her tip on a customer’s credit card payment. After she was fired, she alleged that, among other things, she had been subjected to a hostile work environment and treated differently on account of her age and sex.

According to the Court’s decision, when the plaintiff was hired, she was given copies of several policies, including the employer’s sexual harassment policy (which permitted her to bring concerns to her manager, the Director of Human Resources and a national toll-free hotline), and that she could be immediately terminated for violating cash-handling procedures. Her employment was also governed by a bargaining agreement with the UNITE HERE union. “[T]he Cash Handling Rules generally prohibited an employee from altering a guest check; required that an employee follow proper procedures; and prohibited an employee from handling checks, cash, and credit cards in an improper manner. The restrictions on altering a guest check included prohibitions on changing the tip amount or closing out a check that differed in any way from the customer’s signed receipt.” Notwithstanding these rules, and the fact that she was a trainer who oriented new employees about these rules, “[i]n October 2005, she was issued a warning when two guests left the restaurant without providing a valid form of payment. In January 2006, [plaintiff] received another warning because of a large cash variance following her shift. In May 2006, [plaintiff] received a third warning—a “Final Written Warning”—for adding an additional eighteen-percent gratuity without the customer’s permission.”

A year later, her supervisor noticed that her credit card tips equaled almost 1/3 of her receipts for the day (not including cash tips). “The high tips-to-sales ratio was suspicious and caused [her supervisor] to audit [plaintiff’s] transactions that day. [He] concluded that there were problems with one-third of [her] sales, including receipts for discounted meals that lacked the required discount coupons; ten checks without a signed copy of the room charge, credit card, or other documentation; and two unsigned receipts with listed tips that exceeded the actual food-sales amount. [He] conducted an audit of the two workers with whom [she] had been serving that day but found no similar discrepancies.” He then went back and audited the prior few weeks and involved the Controller and Human Resources Manager, confirmed that there consistently were similar violations and decided to terminate her employment. She “was given the opportunity to explain the various discrepancies, but she failed to do so.”

During the termination meeting, [plaintiff] made general complaints regarding the way that [her supervisor] had administered the staff, but she made no complaints of sex- or age-based discrimination or harassment. Following her termination, Hyatt continued auditing [her] receipts for five dates in April 2007, revealing additional discrepancies. Because [she] had alleged during her termination meeting that [her supervisor] was attempting to get her fired and that he had papered her file and/or stolen the supporting documentation that she needed to explain the discrepancies, Hyatt conducted an audit of [her] transactions during a two week period prior to [his] employment at Hyatt. That audit revealed similar cash-handling problems. Hyatt also conducted an audit of all the checks closed out by the servers on April 25, May 1 through 4, and May 8, 2007, and found that none of them had discrepancies or cash-handling violations similar to [her] discrepancies.

Plaintiff then filed an EEOC Charge and union grievance alleging sexual harassment and age discrimination. Hyatt conducted an investigation, interviewed co-workers and did not find any basis for her claims. She then filed suit in federal court.

The Court concluded that she could not satisfy a prima facie case of age discrimination because she could not show that she was replaced by a substantially younger employee or that younger employees were treated more favorably. A bartender was not her “replacement” because he had already worked in the restaurant part-time before her termination. A “person is not replaced when another employee is assigned to perform the plaintiff’s duties in addition to other duties, or when the work is redistributed among other existing employees already performing related work. A person is replaced only when another employee is hired or reassigned to perform the plaintiff’s duties.”

She also could not show that others were treated more favorably because their alleged violations were not the same.

She claims that the younger employees’ practice of marrying alcohol and their admitted but unproven failure to turn in receipts were sufficiently serious to merit comparison to the disciplinary violation that led to her termination—the cash-handling-policy violation and misappropriation of funds. . . . This is not the case. Marrying alcohol may be a violation of Ohio law, but [she] never engaged in the practice and was never disciplined for not participating. The fact that [she] was terminated for engaging in an illegal practice does not automatically make marrying alcohol and [her] infraction comparable. Misappropriation of funds and marrying alcohol are different circumstances involving distinguishable conduct.

Plaintiff also brought pay discrimination claims because trainers at non-Cleveland Hyatt hotels were paid more than her... However, she presented no evidence that she was paid less than co-workers outside of her protected class in Cleveland “‘for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions. . . . . [She] concedes that she was the only server-trainer in Cleveland, and she has presented no evidence that other non-protected employees held “substantially equal” jobs and were paid more. . . . . . [She] further concedes that those employees who were paid a higher rate had greater seniority and were being paid pursuant to the provisions of the CBA.” She also presented no evidence about the age or sex of the non-Cleveland trainers, even if they could be considered as part of the same establishment.

The Court found that the plaintiff presented a prima facie case of sexual harassment, especially based on two allegations of improper physical contact and her supervisor’s daily bragging about his sexual life:

(1) The Director of Sexual “once invited [her] to lie down in his room;”
(2) The Security Director once told [her] that she was attractive;”
(3) The Director Security “once hit [her] on the buttocks and “untied [her] apron, which was tied in the back;”
(4) Her supervisor “once commented that he had a large penis;”
(5) Her supervisor “once told [her] that he had sex with one of her customers, [her] to provide a free meal to that customer, and then “put his hands . . . against the wall and dry humped it or did a pelvic thrust against it,” stating “I did her, I did her,”;
(6) Her supervisor “had once asked a female line cook to do the “boobie dance,” which involved putting the cook’s “hands underneath her chest” and moving them “up and down” and shaking “her hips;”
(7) Her supervisor “repeatedly bragged to [her] about the day that he had sexual intercourse with a fellow Hyatt server and [her] female co-worker at the Hyatt;”
(8) Her supervisor “repeatedly talked to [her] ‘about a sexual relationship he had with a former co-worker, how that co-worker was pregnant, how [he] needed to mail that pregnant woman a check so that the woman can pay for an abortion,” and how he wanted [plaintiff] to put [his] check in the mail.”

In light of her evidence of sexual harassment, Hyatt would be liable for the supervisor’s actions unless it could show by a preponderance of the evidence “that it exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior” and that [the plaintiff] ‘unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise.’ . . . Generally, an employer satisfies the first part of this two-part standard when it has promulgated and enforced a sexual harassment policy.”

The Court found that Hyatt had an effective sexual-harassment reporting policy and that the plaintiff failed “to take advantage of Hyatt’s corrective policy was unreasonable.”

Although her post-deposition affidavit states that she complained to Hyatt management verbally over thirty times, [her] deposition testimony indicates that she never complained to anyone concerning [her supervisor’s] harassment and discriminatory conduct other than to [her supervisor] himself. Her deposition testimony further establishes that she never complained to anyone about [the Security Director’s] conduct. [Plaintiff] failed to make these complaints notwithstanding that she testified that she was aware of the open-door policy, the complaint procedure, and the fact that if her immediate supervisor failed to act on her complaint she could go elsewhere. [She] clearly took advantage of the complaint process with regard to a variety of run-of-the-mill matters, but she failed to take advantage of the policies when it mattered most.

Likewise, the Court rejected her retaliation claim. She failed to testify in her deposition about any instances of complaining to management about any sex or age discrimination, even though she complained in writing and verbally about a number of other matters. In order to invoke the protections of federal or state law, an employee needs to be direct in complaining about discrimination:

a vague charge of discrimination in an internal letter or memorandum is insufficient to constitute opposition to an unlawful employment practice. An employee may not invoke the protections of the Act by making a vague charge of discrimination. Otherwise, every adverse employment decision by an employer would be subject to challenge under either state or federal civil rights legislation simply by an employee inserting a charge of discrimination.

In any event, the Court also concluded that even if the plaintiff could satisfy her prima facie case, the employer had shown a legitimate, nondiscriminatory and non-retaliatory reason for firing her.

Insomniacs can read the full decision at http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/09a0732n-06.pdf.

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.

EEOC Obtains $4.5M Settlement Based on ADEA Disparate Impact Claim When Insurance Company Adopted Year-Long Hiring Freeze

On Friday, the EEOC announced “a major settlement of an age discrimination class lawsuit against Allstate Insurance Company, one of the nation’s largest insurers, for $4,500,000 to be paid to approximately 90 older former employees, in addition to significant remedial relief.”

The EEOC filed a lawsuit under the ADEA against Allstate in October 2004alleging “that in the year 2000 Allstate adopted a hiring moratorium for a period of one year, or while severance benefits were being received, that applied to all its employee-sales agents who were part of its Preparing For The Future Reorganization Program. The program was part of Allstate’s reorganization from employee agents to what the company considered independent contractors. The EEOC alleged that the policy had a disproportionate impact on Allstate’s employees over the age of 40 because more than 90 percent of the agents subjected to the hiring moratorium were 40 years of age or older. Allstate denies that its hiring moratorium violated the ADEA.” Disparate impact claims were recognized by the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision in Smith v. City of Jackson.

The terms of the settlement, which is “pending approval by U.S. District Judge E. Richard Webber in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (Civil Action No. 4:04CV01359 ERW), Allstate will pay former employees who sought employment -- or would have sought employment with the company in the absence of its policy -- a total of $4.5 million to be divided among the class via a settlement fund. The order, in effect for three years, also provides for discrimination prevention training, posting of notices, reporting and monitoring, and other relief designed to educate Allstate managers in order to prevent future violations of the ADEA.” A 2007 settlement for $250,000 of disparate treatment claims under ADEA brought by two individual employees is not part of this larger settlement agreement.

Insomniacs can read the full press release at http://www.eeoc.gov/press/9-11-09a.html.

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.

Ohio Supreme Court: All State Age Discrimination Claims Are Governed by § 4112.14(C)’s Deference to Arbitration Procedures and Cannot Be Re-Litigated.

This morning, the Ohio Supreme Court held in Meyer v. United Parcel Service, Inc., that the prohibition in § 4112.14(C) on pursuing an age discrimination lawsuit when an arbitration remedy is otherwise available to the plaintiff applies to all age discrimination claims brought under Ohio Revised Code Chapter 4112. If this seems complicated, that is because it is.

In Meyer, the plaintiff was fired – for a third time – by UPS after 25 years of employment. Having been reinstated twice before by using the grievance process in the collective bargaining agreement, he again filed a grievance, but it was denied and his discharge was upheld – by a panel of union members and management -- for being due to just cause under the bargaining agreement. He also filed a lawsuit alleging workers compensation retaliation and later amended his complaint to add claims for age discrimination (in that he was replaced by an employee decades younger than himself) under Ohio Revised Code § 4112.99 and public policy. Both claims were tried to a jury and he was awarded $336,208 in back pay, punitive damages and pre-judgment interest and $135,147 in attorney fees and court costs. On appeal, the appellate court ruled that the workers compensation claim should not have been tried to a jury, but rejected the employer’s argument that the §4112.99 age discrimination claim should have been barred by the arbitration prohibition provision in §4112.14(C) and remanded the case to the trial court. The employer appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed only to resolve the dispute involving the age discrimination claim.

Under Ohio law, plaintiffs may chose between a variety of age discrimination statutes. Section 4112.02(N) provides that an

aggrieved individual may enforce the individual’s rights relative to discrimination on the basis of age as provided for in this section by instituting a civil action, within one hundred eighty days after the alleged unlawful discriminatory practice occurred, in any court with jurisdiction for any legal or equitable relief that will effectuate the individual’s rights. (italics added).

This provision authorizes compensatory and punitive damages for successful plaintiffs. However, a plaintiff who files a lawsuit under §4112.02(N) “is barred, with respect to the practices complained of, from instituting a civil action under section 4112.14 of the Revised Code and from filing a charge with the commission under section 4112.05 of the Revised Code.”

Section 4112.05 permits individuals to file Charges of Discrimination with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission within six months of the alleged discrimination.

Section 4112.14 (formerly codified at § 4101.17) prohibits age discrimination in hiring and firing, permits the filing of a lawsuit by an aggrieved employee or applicant, and provides reinstatement, back pay and attorneys fees to successful plaintiff. However, plaintiffs who file under § 4112.14 may not file a Charge of Discrimination with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission or file a lawsuit under § 4112.02(N). This section also provides that the remedies available “are coexistent with remedies available pursuant to sections 4112.01 to 4112.11 of the Revised Code,” but it seems unlikely that plaintiffs under §4112.14 may obtain compensatory or punitive damages. In addition, when this statute was codified at § 4101.17, the statute of limitations for these age discrimination claims were held to be six years. Since this statute was recodified at § 4112.14, it is no longer clear whether the limitations period for claims brought under § 4112.14 are still six years, but the Supreme Court has refused to confirm this or limit the claims to 180 days as in §4112.02(N). Importantly for the Meyer case, § 4112.14(C) provides that § 4112.14 lawsuits and other lawsuits brought

pursuant to sections 4112.01 to 4112.11 of the Revised Code shall not be available in the case of discharges where the employee has available to the employee the opportunity to arbitrate the discharge or where a discharge has been arbitrated and has been found to be for just cause. (italics added).

Notably, § 4112.14(C) does not specifically address claims brought under § 4112.99 (but, rather, addresses only claims brought under §§ 4112.01 to 4112.11).

Section 4112.99 provides that “Whoever violates this chapter is subject to a civil action for damages, injunctive relief, or any other appropriate relief.” This is a general statute and must be paired with a more specific statute, like §4112.02(N) or § 4112.14. In any event, this general provision authorizes compensatory and punitive damages regardless of whether it is paired with more specific statutes like § 4112.02(N) or § 4112.14. This is important because there is an argument that §4112.14 does not otherwise authorize compensatory or punitive damages. Plaintiffs who bring an action under § 4112.99 need not specify which more specific statute supports their claims.

In Meyer, the Court held that age discrimination lawsuits may not be brought “where the employee has available to the employee the opportunity to arbitrate the discharge or where a discharge has been arbitrated and has been found to be for just cause.” Therefore, even if the employee filed a lawsuit within 180 days under §4112.02(N) and even thought that statute does not mention arbitration proceedings, that age discrimination lawsuit is still governed by § 4112.14(C). In addition, even though Meyer’s grievance was not arbitrated by a single arbitrator, the bargaining agreement’s grievance procedure was equivalent to an arbitration and, thus, was covered by § 4112.14(C) arbitration clause.

Friends of the court filed briefs in the Meyer case urging the Court to address other questions posed by §4112.14, such as the length of its limitations period and whether it authorizes compensatory and punitive damages. However, the Court declined to do so. Instead, the reasoning of the Court was that all age discrimination claims brought under §4112.99 are subject to §4112.02(N) and §4112.14 and because §4112.14(C) prohibits age discrimination claims where the plaintiff had arbitration available to him or her, no age discrimination claims can be brought under §4112.99 if an arbitrator – or effective equivalent – upheld the discharge under a just cause standard. This might indicate that plaintiffs should only file claims under §4112.02(N) and not mention § 4112.99, but the syllabus of the Court’s opinion – which states the law of the case – does not limit its holding to §4112.99 claims. Rather, the syllabus refers to all age discrimination claims.

Insomniacs can read the full court opinion at http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2009/2009-ohio-2463.pdf.

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.

Franklin County Court of Appeals Affirms Dismissal of Age and Disability Claims Brought by Fire Fighter

Last week, the Franklin County Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of disability and age discrimination claims brought by a fire lieutenant who was passed over for a promotion to captain. Sheridan v. Jackson Twp. Div. Fire, 2009-Ohio-1267. In short, the court agreed that plaintiff’s foot/ankle impairment was not “substantially limiting” when it did not preclude him from performing his firefighting duties. The age discrimination claim was dismissed because the successful candidate was only seven years younger than the plaintiff and the law does not require the employer to promote the oldest candidate.

According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff claimed to have a disability “based on the fact that he has undergone several foot/ankle surgeries. Although he stated that these medical problems prevent him from running, mowing the lawn, or walking long distances without pain, the fact remains that he can still perform the duties of his job with the fire department. . .. Mere difficulty in standing or walking is not sufficient to establish a substantial limitation on the major life activity of walking . . . Even moderate difficulty in walking may not establish a substantial impairment . . . . Because [the plaintiff] is able to perform his occupational duties—fighting fires—it is difficult to conclude that he has a disability of the substantially limiting variety. This precludes relief under the ADA.”

Insomniacs can read the full court opinion at http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/10/2009/2009-ohio-1267.pdf.

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. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with an attorney.

Delaware County Court of Appeals Reverses Employer’s Summary Judgment on Age Discrimination Claim of Fired Salesman With History of Declining Sales.

Last month, a divided Delaware County Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment on an age discrimination claim which had been entered in favor of an employer and against a salesman who had been terminated for poor performance. Peters v. Rock-Tenn Co., 2008-Ohio-6444. According to the court, the plaintiff alleged that he had been set up to fail by his employer when it doubled his sales quota and required him to sell new products. The employer showed that his sales had declined in each of the prior four years. Problematic for the employer, however, was evidence that the sales goal of the plaintiff’s significantly younger replacement was no greater than the plaintiff’s actual sales.

According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff alleged that he had been terminated from his sales job in January 2007 after 25 years of employment based on his age. In particular, he alleged “that he had been assigned additional duties without adequate support and training, as a pretext for terminating his employment.” In the year before his termination, his new supervisor both doubled his sales goals and required him to begin selling new products in territories already covered by existing sales agents. However, the sales goal of his significantly younger replacement was less than the plaintiff’s goal; the replacement was apparently only required to match what the plaintiff had sold in his last year of employment.

The employer contended that the plaintiff had been discharged for unsatisfactory performance. According to the employer, the plaintiff’s sales had actually decreased in each of the prior four years and he had only successfully solicited one new client in the last three year (which brought in less than $1,000 in sales commission). His supervisor testified that he was among the poorest performing salespeople. In essence, he was “coasting” on his existing client base and was no longer effective at generating new sales – or even maintaining his existing sales level.

However, the plaintiff produced evidence that he had received a large bonus for 2006, and that he had been commended by his supervisor for receiving a perfect satisfaction score from his largest customer. He also argued that by doubling his sales quota and assigning him new products to sell, the employer was setting him up to fail and shared the blame for his declining sales performance. Surprisingly, the court of appeals found this argument to be sufficient to create a material issue of disputed fact which could only be resolved by a jury trial and not by a judge on summary judgment.

The court indicated that it was rejecting supposed evidence of discriminatory intent -- based on a comment by a non-decisionmaker (a plant general manager) that he and the plaintiff were the “old” company – because it was isolated and ambiguous.

In his dissent, one judge noted that the plaintiff had admitted that the employer wanted all of its salespeople to meet his new goal and “the median age of the company’s salesmen was 55; all were over the age of forty, and half were older than” the plaintiff. Moreover, merely because the plaintiff was good at certain aspects of his job should not have obviated the employer’s concern with his inability to generate new sales in the last three years. Nonetheless, the case was remanded to a jury trial.

Insomniacs can read the court’s decision in full at http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/5/2008/2008-ohio-6444.pdf.

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.

Long Island Police Department to Pay $450K to settle Age Discrimination Lawsuit Brought by EEOC.

Last week, the EEOC announced that the Nassau County Police Department would be paying $450,000 (to be divided among four officers) and providing anti-discrimination training for more than 400 supervisors and managers to settle a lawsuit alleging that the officers had been discriminatorily transferred in July 2006 to less desirable assignments on account of their age and replaced with younger, less qualified officers. Two of the officers alleged that the transfers were so humiliating that they constituted a constructive discharge.

Insomniacs can read the full EEOC press release at http://www.eeoc.gov/press/10-23-08.html.

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.

Ohio Court of Appeals Expands Right to Sue for Discriminatory Constructive Discharge and Demotion.

Last month, a unanimous Franklin County Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment previously entered in favor of an employer in an age discrimination case. Coryell v. Bank One Trust Co., 2008-Ohio-2698 (6/5/08). The Court made several significant holdings. First, the Court held that a plaintiff could show under certain circumstances that s/he had been discharged even if the employee voluntarily chose a severance pay option instead of remaining employed for an indefinite period of time. Second, the Court concluded that a plaintiff could pursue a claim for discriminatory job conditions -- such as a lesser job title and/or decreased responsibilities -- which fell short of a constructive discharge, even without a commiserate decrease in pay. Finally, the Court found sufficient evidence which the jury could use both to disbelieve the Bank’s non-discriminatory explanation for its conduct and to base a finding of discriminatory intent.

The Background

Plaintiff had been the Senior Vice President for the group “which handled the administration and servicing of institutional accounts involving assets subject to trust or other custody requirements. During his tenure, [the plaintiff] was active in direct client relationships and assumed full responsibility for all relationships that were threatening litigation due to problems predating [his] hire. In 2000, despite his experience handling direct client relationships, his supervisor directed him to no longer “maintain direct, selective account responsibilities” and he ”transitioned his accounts to individuals within his organization.” Following a reorganization and change in group leadership, the plaintiff became responsible for managing 28 employees. When discussions began about moving Plaintiff’s team to another group shortly thereafter, Plaintiff supported the move, outlined his suggestions for his role in the new group, and suggested that his management role be eliminated and he transition to a player-coach. However, because Plaintiff had no clients of his own and had been performing only as a manager for a few years, the new group declined to offer him a position after the move. Instead, Plaintiff’s duties were distributed between three other managers (one of whom assumed his former job title, received an increase in compensation and received a 300% increase in his bonus the following year).

Plaintiff continued on the payroll of his former supervisor at the Bank and was rejected for two open positions for which he applied. He was then offered severance and the option of remaining on payroll for an unspecified period of time or risking a six-month reduction in severance payments under the Bank’s new severance plan if he did not act quickly. After suffering a heart attack, Plaintiff accepted the severance option with a one-year salary continuation period and continued to search for another job within and outside the Bank. After finding a position outside the Bank, he filed suit and claimed he had been discriminated against on account of his age.
The common pleas court found factual dispute existed as to whether Plaintiff was qualified for the management position with the new group (which existed after his position was allegedly eliminated) and whether he was replaced by someone substantially younger than himself. Nonetheless, the common pleas court found, as a matter of law, that Plaintiff “was neither directly nor constructively discharged because he chose between meaningful options when he accepted the severance package” and, therefore, Plaintiff was unable to establish that he suffered from an adverse employment action as required to carry his prima facie case.

Existence of Constructive Discharge

In prior Supreme Court cases, the court has held that the prima facie case cannot be satisfied when the plaintiff chose severance instead of other options which would have preserved the plaintiff’s employment. For instance, in Barker v. v. Scovill, Inc., 6 Ohio St.3d 146, 147 (1983). the plaintiff had been “offered both termination with severance pay and layoff options, but was also given the opportunity to transfer to another plant.” She also “confessed that her refusal to accept the transfer was not based on the inherent undesirability of the offered employ; it was predicated on her belief that she " * * * could duplicate * * * [her] salary some place else." As a result, because she “made a conscious, well-informed, uncoerced decision, [s]he should not now be allowed to cry foul” later.

“When a plaintiff chooses termination in lieu of other options, courts will not construe his decision as an actual discharge. Rather, the plaintiff must show that he was constructively discharged, i.e., that his or her choice of termination was involuntary or coerced. . . . . Courts generally apply an objective test to determine whether a plaintiff was constructively discharged, asking "whether the employer's actions made working conditions so intolerable that a reasonable person under the circumstances would have felt compelled to resign."

The Supreme Court has explained that “In applying this test, courts seek to determine whether the cumulative effect of the employer's actions would make a reasonable person believe that termination was imminent. They recognize that there is no sound reason to compel an employee to struggle with the inevitable simply to attain the "discharge" label. No single factor is determinative. Instead, a myriad of factors are considered, including reductions in sales territory, poor performance evaluations, criticism in front of coemployees, inquiries about retirement intentions, and expressions of a preference for employees outside the protected group. Nor does the inquiry change solely because an option to transfer is thrown into the mix, lateral though it may be. A transfer accompanied by measurable compensation at a comparable level does not necessarily preclude a finding of constructive discharge. * * * A sophisticated discriminating employer should not be permitted to circumvent the statute by transferring an older employee to a sham position as a prelude to discharge.”

The Court of Appeals concluded that Plaintiff produced sufficient evidence to create a question for the jury about whether his discharge was imminent. The Bank “stripped him of his title, position, responsibilities, functions, supervisory role, and involvement in day-to-day operations and management, leaving him with no real position. [The new group leader] informed [Plaintiff] that he would not retain him as Managing Director of the National Accounts Group and informed the National Accounts Group that Kozak would immediately assume management responsibilities. [The new group leader] also told [Plaintiff] that he would not provide him another position in the National Accounts Group. Additionally, [the former supervisor] told [Plalintiff] that [the new group leader] was not amenable to [Plaintiff] obtaining any internal position related to institutional investment management. [Plaintiff] applied for two internal positions prior to accepting the severance package, but he was rejected for both positions. [the former supervisor] "highly recommended" that [Plaintiff] accept a severance package because [he] "did not have a position" and because [the supervisor] believed that [Plaintiff] would not be able to secure another position within” the bank. Plailntiff “understood that [his former supervisor] saw his own future with Bank One as "uncertain" and that he did not know how long he would be able to maintain [him] on the payroll. . . . Moreover, the severance package specifically provided that [plaintiff] could continue to seek a new internal position and, thus, simply guaranteed [Plaintiff] a continued salary and benefits while searching for a new position within the organization.”

Even though the Bank did not transfer Plaintiff, it “stripped him of all attributes of his former position, essentially leaving him in a non-existent position.” While Plaintiff remained on the payroll of his former supervisor’s group, Plaintiff “had no title, responsibilities or duties.” In that Plaintiff’s understood the tenuous nature of his former supervisor’s “own continued employment and Natsis's recommendation that [Plaintiff] accept the severance package, [Plaintiff] could reasonably have believed that termination was imminent should he reject the severance package. The record contains ample evidence that [he] desired to continue working for the Trust Group and made attempts to find another position within the organization both before and after accepting the severance package, but, in light of comments” by the leaders of the new and former groups, Plaintiff “could have reasonably believed that he would not be successful in obtaining a new internal position. ‘[T]here is no sound reason to compel an employee to struggle with the inevitable simply to attain the `discharge' label.’ Ultimately, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Coryell, we find that genuine issues of material fact remain as to whether Coryell was constructively discharged.”

Age Discrimination Without Discharge from Employment

In addition, the Court acknowledged that an age discrimination claim is not limited to wrongful discharge claims. Even where the employee is unable to show that s/he was constructively discharged, employees may pursue claims for age discrimination whenever they have suffered an adverse employment action in connection with discharge, hire or other terms and conditions of employment. “Whether a specific action constitutes an adverse employment action is determined on a case-by-case basis. . . . Generally, an adverse employment action is defined as a material adverse change in the terms and conditions of employment. . . . . Employment actions that result only in inconvenience or an alteration of job responsibilities are not disruptive enough to constitute adverse employment actions.”

“[A] job transfer resulting in a less distinguished title or significantly diminished responsibilities can constitute an adverse employment action. * * * As well, an employer's decision to transfer an employee to a different department, remove her from her management position, place her under the supervision of the person who took her former management position, assign her less job responsibilities that do not comport with her qualifications and give her negative comments on surprise performance evaluations can be classified as adverse employment actions despite no loss of wages or benefits.” For instance, in Bhat v. Univ. of Cincinnati, Ohio Ct. of Cl. No. 2000-04723, 2003-Ohio-5623, “the Court of Claims determined that the plaintiff demonstrated an adverse employment action where the University of Cincinnati removed her titles of director of cardiac transplantation and director of the heart failure program, despite maintaining her as a full professor with no loss of pay or benefits. The court found that the loss of the "director" titles had a significant effect on the plaintiff's status; "[s]he lost not only the prestige associated with the director's title, but also the level of responsibility and the perception of her professional capabilities associated with those roles." Likewise in Tessmer v. Nationwide Life Ins. Co. (Sept. 30, 1999), Franklin App. No. 98AP-1278, actionable discrimination was found “where the employer abolished the plaintiff's job-share arrangement, stripped the plaintiff from her position and title, reassigned her job duties to younger male employees, and initiated a salary audit that resulted in her position being reclassified to a lower pay band.”

In this case, the Court concluded that Plaintiff could pursue an age discrimination claim even if he had not arguably been discharged. The decision to not “retain [Plaintiff] as Managing Director of the National Accounts Group, to reassign [his] management and supervisory responsibilities” to a significantly younger manager who formerly reported to him, and “to not provide [him with] another position within the National Accounts Group had a materially adverse effect on the terms and conditions of [his] employment. Although [Plaintiff] technically remained employed, with no loss of salary or benefits, after Abunassar removed him from his position as Managing Director, Abunassar's actions left [Plaintiff] with no title, no authority, no responsibilities, and limited prospects of continued employment. At a minimum, [the Bank] contends that [it] eliminated [Plaintiff’s] position. Such an action had an adverse effect on the terms of Coryell's employment.”

Evidence of Pretext

"The factfinder's disbelief of the reasons put forward by the defendant (particularly if disbelief is accompanied by a suspicion of mendacity) may, together with the elements of the prima facie case, suffice to show intentional discrimination. Thus, rejection of the defendant's proffered reasons will permit the trier of fact to infer the ultimate fact of intentional discrimination. . . . . A fact finder's disbelief of the employer's articulated reason does not compel judgment for the plaintiff. Before a plaintiff is entitled to judgment, the fact finder must not only disbelieve the employer, but must also believe the plaintiff's explanation of discrimination. Reeves at 147, citing Hicks at 519. However, "[i]n appropriate circumstances, the trier of fact can reasonably infer from the falsity of the [employer's] explanation that the employer is dissembling to cover up a discriminatory purpose." Reeves at 147. Thus, a plaintiff need not always introduce independent evidence of discrimination to show pretext where there is sufficient evidence to reject the employer's explanation.”

The Court found there was sufficient evidence for the jury to disbelieve the Bank’s explanation for Plaintiff’s treatment and to infer the existence of age discrimination. ”First, only months before Abunassar removed [Plaintiff] from his position, [he] was selected to create and lead the National Accounts Group, based on his relevant experience and knowledge. All evidence suggests that [he] was successfully performing his role of Managing Director, and Abunassar admitted that he had no issues with Coryell's performance.” In his own affidavit, Plaintiff stated that his former supervisor stated that he “should manage the [National Accounts Group under Abunassar], as I was the most qualified." Plaintiff’s former supervisor ”testified that [Plaintiff] had been successful at Bank One, demonstrated technical knowledge, and was liked and supported by his subordinates. Second, while Abunassar desired the National Accounts Group manager to maintain a book of business, there is no dispute that Coryell's experience qualified him to resume direct client relationships. Until shortly before embarking on the creation of the National Accounts Group, Coryell successfully maintained a book of business, which he gave up at the direction of his former supervisor who, in direct contrast to Abunassar's business model, prohibited managers from maintaining books of business. Moreover, Coryell was willing and qualified to resume direct client relationships and suggested to Abunassar that he resume direct relationships and serve as a "player-coach," the very term Abunassar uses to describe his vision of the Managing Director role. The record contains evidence that certain accounts had not yet been transitioned to National Accounts Group employees, and the National Accounts Group organizational chart shows open Institutional Client Advisor positions, suggesting the availability of accounts for which Coryell could have assumed direct responsibility. Abunassar also admitted that, if he had wanted to assign Coryell accounts, he could have done so through the open investment relationship manager position for which Coryell interviewed, but was rejected. Such evidence discredits Abunassar's refusal to assign Coryell a book of business based on his reluctance to transition clients where unnecessary. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Coryell, we find that a fact finder could reasonably disbelieve appellees' purported non-discriminatory reason for their actions relating to Coryell's position and employment.”

“Because the fact finder's disbelief of [the Bank’s] proffered non-discriminatory reason, coupled with evidence satisfying Coryell's prima facie case, would permit (although not compel) the fact finder to infer the ultimate fact of intentional discrimination, we find that [the Bank is] not entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Coryell's age discrimination claim. We do not suggest that Coryell will or should ultimately prevail on his age discrimination claim, but conclude only that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to Coryell, creates genuine issues of material fact, which preclude summary judgment. Accordingly, we find that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of [the Bank] , and we sustain Coryell's first assignment of error.

Insomniacs can read the decision in full at 2698 http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/10/2008/2008-ohio-2698.pdf.

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.

Supreme Court: Employer Bears Burden of Proving Disparate Impact of Facially Neutral Factors Was Based on a Reasonable Factor Other Than Age

On June 19, 2008, the Supreme Court held that the employer bears the both the burden of production and the burden of persuasion in raising as an affirmative defense to an ADEA disparate impact claim that its decision was based on a reasonable factor other than age (RFOA). Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Lab., No. 06-1505. In Meacham, the employer conducted a reduction in force (after more than 100 employees accepted voluntary buyouts) in which 30 of the 31 involuntarily reduced positions were held by an employee over the age of 40. Managers had been instructed to evaluate their staffs by four factors: years of service, "performance," "flexibility," and "critical skills." Twenty-eight of the involuntarily reduced employees sued, raising both disparate-treatment (i.e., intent) and disparate-impact (i.e., result) claims under the ADEA and state law, alleging that the defendant employer "designed and implemented its workforce reduction process to eliminate older employees and that, regardless of intent, the process had a discriminatory impact on ADEA-protected employees." In the ensuring class action, the plaintiffs’ expert opined “that results so skewed according to age could rarely occur by chance;4 and that the scores for "flexibility" and "criticality," over which managers had the most discretionary judgment, had the firmest statistical ties to the outcomes.”

In construing the ADEA statute, the Court recognized that the RFOA defense was listed along another affirmative defense for bona fide occupational qualification. The employer has always held the burden of proof and persuasion for the BFOQ defense. Similarly, under the FLSA and EPA, the employer has born the burden of proof and persuasion on the “reasonable factor other than sex” affirmative defense. While it might seem reasonable to assume a different interpretation of the burden in a disparate treatment case – since age is a factor in the prima facie case – and the RFOA defense seems superfluous, in the disparate treatment case (where age discrimination exists in fact when the unlawful treatment is not based on age), the RFOA defense is particularly applicable:

“[I]n the typical disparate-impact case, the employer's practice is "without respect to age" and its adverse impact (though "because of age") is "attributable to a nonage factor"; so action based on a "factor other than age" is the very premise for disparate-impact liability in the first place, not a negation of it or a defense to it. The RFOA defense in a disparate-impact case, then, is not focused on the asserted fact that a non-age factor was at work; we assume it was. The focus of the defense is that the factor relied upon was a "reasonable" one for the employer to be using. Reasonableness is a justification categorically distinct from the factual condition "because of age" and not necessarily correlated with it in any particular way: a reasonable factor may lean more heavily on older workers, as against younger ones, and an unreasonable factor might do just the opposite.”

“Here is what is so strange: as the Government says, "[i]f disparate-impact plaintiffs have already established that a challenged practice is a pretext for intentional age discrimination, it makes little sense then to ask whether the discriminatory practice is based on reasonable factors other than age." Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 26 (emphasis in original). Conversely, proving the reasonableness defense would eliminate much of the point a plaintiff would have had for showing alternatives in the first place: why make the effort to show alternative practices with a less discriminatory effect (and besides, how would that prove pretext?), when everyone knows that the choice of a practice relying on a "reasonable" non-age factor is good enough to avoid liability?14 At the very least, developing the reasonableness defense would be substantially redundant with the direct contest over the force of the business justification, especially when both enquiries deal with the same, narrowly specified practice. It is not very fair to take the remark about Wards Cove in City of Jackson as requiring such a wasteful and confusing structure of proof.”

Regardless of the strangeness of the result, the Court reiterated that the plaintiff still bears the burden of producing enough evidence to show that age discrimination has resulted from a specific employment practice which is responsible for statistical disparities against older workers. In the final analysis, the Court acknowledges that “there is no denying that putting employers to the work of persuading factfinders that their choices are reasonable makes it harder and costlier to defend than if employers merely bore the burden of production; nor do we doubt that this will sometimes affect the way employers do business with their employees.” Moreover, “as the outcome for the employer in City of Jackson shows, "it is not surprising that certain employment criteria that are routinely used may be reasonable despite their adverse impact on older workers as a group."

Insomniacs can read the full decision at http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-1505.pdf. 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.

EEOC Obtains $904K Settlement on Behalf of 10 Employees Fired in a RIF Who Alleged Age Discrimination and/or Retaliation.

Yesterday, the EEOC “announced the settlement of its age discrimination lawsuit against Lockheed Martin Global Telecommunications for $773,000 for a class of eight older employees” in addition to the severance pay already received by the eight employees. In addition, “through a separate consent decree filed last year to settle retaliation claims brought in the same lawsuit, “Lockheed Martin has paid $131,000 in damages to two former employees whose severance was withheld because they had pursued administrative complaints with the EEOC.”

"In its suit (05-cv-00287-RWT), filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Southern Division, the EEOC charged that the . . . employer violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) when it discriminated against the employees, ages 65, 62, 61 (three), 53 and 47. The eight workers were fired during a reduction in force implemented in the COMSAT Mobile Communications Division in October 2000. The back pay remedies received by the claimants are in addition to severance pay already received.”

“In Fiscal Year 2007, the EEOC received 19,103 age discrimination charge filings, a 15% increase from the prior year and the biggest annual increase in five years. Allegations of age bias account for 23% of the agency’s private sector caseload.”

Insomniacs can read the EEOC’s full press release at http://www.eeoc.gov/press/4-7-08a.html.
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.

Sixth Circuit Affirms $435K Verdict in Retaliatory Termination Case.

In Imwalle v. Reliance Medical Products, Inc., No. 06-4619 (6th Cir. 2/8/08), the plaintiff argued that he was unlawfully terminated by a Swiss conglomerate as President and corporate Chief Operations Officer only three months after he filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC alleging discrimination on account of his age (62) and national origin (American). The jury awarded $185,000 to the plaintiff on the retaliation claims and the Court added another $250,000 for attorney fees, court costs and pre-judgment interest. The Sixth Circuit affirmed on appeal.

The plaintiff had produced evidence that the Swiss company had proposed several cost-cutting measures, including a corporate-level powerpoint presentation by his boss (a Swiss citizen) which suggested the termination of “elderly” employees. He testified that he had been phased out of the corporate decisionmaking process and his boss also suggested in May 2003 that he hoped to retire and volunteer in the community at plaintiff’s age and then asked for the plaintiff’s resignation. The plaintiff also testified that his Swiss boss had complained to him in 1996 about it being the biggest mistake of his career to hire an American manager (i.e., the plaintiff), said he would never repeat that mistake and, in fact, never hired another American manager thereafter. His boss admitted that age discrimination is not illegal in Switzerland and did not understand U.S. employment laws or how they applied to the plaintiff. Nonetheless, the jury rejected the plaintiff’s discrimination claims.

When the plaintiff refused to retire as requested, he hired an attorney and accused the employer of both illegal discrimination and breaching his employment agreement. The employer then agreed to retain him in his current position, but never brought him back into the corporate decisionmaking process. The plaintiff then filed an EEOC Charge alleging age and national origin discrimination. Three months later, his boss met with him and, as described by both the plaintiff and the employer’s human resources director, fired him in January 2004 after reading the following statement:

“‘Dennis, I know that you know [the defendant employer] never committed discrimination in the past, at present, and will not in the future. I therefore canot [sic] understand why you raise such a claim.’ We are not discriminatory, just not.”

The defendant submitted a plausible explanation of poor performance as a non-retaliatory reason why it terminated the plaintiff. For example, the employer contended that it was unhappy with how the plaintiff had managed a particular division and had managed his own division during the brief 2001 recession. The employer also showed that it had pretty much excluded the plaintiff from the corporate decisionmaking process before he made his first allegation of discrimination in May 2003. However, the Court held that the jury could disbelieve the employer’s explanation of poor performance on the grounds that other individuals were more responsible for the corporate failures according to the outside auditors (and yet were not similarly held accountable) and because other managers were not similarly held responsible for the recession. Once a jury rejects the employer’s explanation as false or insufficient, it may infer that discrimination or retaliation was the actual reason or motivation. More importantly, the Court found that the employer’s pre-discharge statement -- denying any unlawful discrimination and wondering how the plaintiff could make such an accusation -- could reasonably be interpreted as evidence that the plaintiff’s EEOC allegations were at the forefront of the employer’s mind when it decided to terminate him.

The Court acknowledged that temporal proximity alone can rarely prove a retaliation claim and the plaintiff lacked direct evidence of retaliation. Indeed, the Court had previously ruled that the passage of four months between protected conduct (i.e., an EEOC Charge) and a discharge created an insufficient inference of retaliation. However, with the passage of only three months, the jury’s disbelief of the employer’s explanation for its conduct and – most importantly -- the employer’s pre-discharge statement, the plaintiff had produced sufficient circumstantial evidence of a retaliatory discharge to support the jury’s verdict. It probably would have been a different result had the employer not protested the discrimination allegations moments before firing the plaintiff.

Insomniacs can read the decision in full at http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0066p-06.pdf.

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.

Federal Sixth Circuit Revives Retaliation Claim Where Employer Fired Employee Upon Learning of EEOC Charge.

On January 31, 2008, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of an age discrimination claim where the plaintiff could not identify a similarly-situated younger employee with better treatment, but revived a retaliation claim where the employer had fired the employee the same morning he returned to the office after the EEOC served the employer with the EEOC Charge. Mickey v. Zeidler Tool & Die Co., No. 06-1960 (6th Cir. 1/31/08). In particular, the EEOC Charge was received on October 14, 2004 while the employer was out of town. He returned to work on October 19, 2004 and fired the plaintiff at 7:30 a.m. in the morning. The Court held that the proximity of the employer’s termination decision and learning of the EEOC Charge was sufficient by itself to establish a prima facie case of retaliation.

The Court's opinion also suggested that events which predated the filing of the EEOC Charge and the employer's knowledge of it could support a prima facie case, but there was a dissenting opinion on that issue.

In addition, the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence of pretext. While the employer claimed that his decision had been motivated by poor business conditions and the lack of work for the plaintiff to perform, the plaintiff was able to show that the records that the employer had been reviewing the prior weekend showed it was profitable in 2004 and that it had been recruiting to hire employees with the plaintiff’s qualifications both before and after the plaintiff’s termination. While the jury could believe that the employer was attempting to keep the company afloat after three years of losses, the court refused to make that determination at the summary judgment stage. Moreover, although the employer claimed the plaintiff’s performance had been deficient and had substantially reduced his compensation earlier in the year, there were no negative performance evaluations in his personnel file. Further, the employer’s answers to deposition questions were evasive when asked whether the EEOC Charge played a role in the termination decision. Indeed, at one point the employer denied knowing about the EEOC Charge before he terminated the plaintiff and then corrected himself when challenged.

Insomniacs can read the full decision at http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0056p-06.pdf.

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. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with an attorney.

EEOC Legal Victories Cost Employers

EEOC Obtains $27.5M in Consent Decree that Law Firm Partners Are Employees Protected by the ADEA. On October 5, 2007, the EEOC announced that “the international law firm of Sidley Austin LLP will pay $27.5 million to 32 former partners who . . . [allegedly] were forced out of the partnership because of their age, under a consent decree approved by a federal judge. (EEOC v. Sidley Austin LLP, N.D. Illinois No. 05 C 0208.)” The EEOC initiated the litigation two years ago under the ADEA and alleged that the partners “either were expelled from the partnership in connection with an October 1999 reorganization or retired under the firm’s age-based retirement policy.” The litigation has received wide-spread attention since when the EEOC tried to enforce subpoenas during its initial investigation because “[a] major issue in the case was whether partners in the law firm were protected as employees under the ADEA.” The EEOC announced that “[t]he decree provides that ‘Sidley agrees that each person for whom EEOC has sought relief in this matter was an employee with the meaning of the ADEA.’” The full press release may be accessed at http://www.eeoc.gov/press/10-5-07.html.

EEOC Obtains $4.3 consent judgment for Hispanic workers. On October 16, 2007, the EEOC both filed a complaint and entered into a consent decree in federal district court for the Southern District of New York with B & H Foto and Electronics Corp., resolving a national origin discrimination case on behalf of Hispanic workers. The Title VII lawsuit “alleged that B & H paid Hispanics in its warehouses less than non-Hispanic workers and failed to promote them or provide them health benefits based on their national origin (EEOC v. B & H Foto and Electronics Corp., No. 07- CV-9241).” B & H voluntarily agreed “to comply with the requirements of Title VII; equalize the wages of Hispanic employees to their non-Hispanic coworkers; and to work with the EEOC in a claims process to distribute $4.3 million in monetary relief to individuals who were paid less, not promoted, or denied benefits because they are Hispanic.” The full press release may be accessed at http://www.eeoc.gov/press/10-16-07.html.

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. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with an attorney.

Supreme Court Rejects Public Policy Claims for Age Discrimination, Shortening Time for Bringing Discrimination Claims Against Ohio Employers

On September 27, 2007, the Ohio Supreme Court issued a 6-1 decision holding that public policy wrongful discharge claims (based on prohibitions against age discrimination) may no longer be brought against employers subject to Ohio Revised Code § 4112 (governing employment discrimination). The rationale for this holding is that ORC § 4112 already provides sufficient remedies for injured plaintiffs without having to recognize a common law remedy. This holding will likely be applied to other employment discrimination claims as well. The Court refused to address whether the holding will apply to employers who are NOT subject to ORC § 4112 (i.e., employers with less than 4 employees, etc.). The practical effect of this decision is to reduce the statute of limitations for ORC § 4112 claims of employment discrimination seeking damages to only 180 days (or 6 months), not four years as was available for common law public policy claims. (Plaintiffs still retain the right for six years to seek backpay, attorneys' fees, and reinstatement under ORC § 4112.14). Accordingly, the plaintiff’s claim in this case was dismissed for being filed beyond the 180 day limitations period. Leininger v. Pioneer Natl. Latex, 2007-Ohio-4921.

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. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with an attorney. Insomniacs may read a copy of the decision at http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2007/2007-Ohio-4921.pdf.

Age Discrimination Can Be a Sloppy Business

On October 15, 2007, the Sixth Circuit reversed a summary judgment which had been entered in favor of an employer in an age discrimination case and began its opinion as follows:

"When a fifty-seven-year-old’s direct supervisor taunts him as “the old man on the sales force,” removes him from a profitable account because he is “too old,” and tells another employee he “needs to set up a younger sales force” before terminating the employee, can the employee’s age-discrimination claim survive summary judgment? We believe it can."

In Blair v. Henry Filters, Inc., No. 05-2437, the court returned the case to the district court for trial. The employer lost on appeal even though it showed that it had laid off two under-40 employees at the same time as plaintiff (and had reduced its workforce from 143 employees to just 52 employees in only two years) and the employer's witnesses denied the plaintiff’s version of events and that the decisionmaker was the same person making the ageist comments alleged by the plaintiff. However, courts are not permitted to weigh credibility at the summary judgment stage.

The appellate court noted that the comment about the plaintiff being “too old” to be handling the employer’s Ford account was direct evidence of his removal from the Ford account on account of his age, but was not direct evidence that he was terminated on account of his age. However, the cumulative effect of the comments and the fact that a twenty-year old salesperson was hired in some capacity four months later were enough to create a circumstantial case of age discrimination. The court also noted that plaintiffs in a RIF case had a lower burden of proof than in the typical discrimination case:

"We recognize that this holding comes close to permitting a plaintiff in a reduction-in-force case to get to a jury merely by creating a genuine issue of material fact regarding the prima facie case. But to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding the employer’s actual motivation, a plaintiff must still provide evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that an illegal motivation was more likely the reason for the adverse employment action. To create a genuine issue of material fact regarding the prima facie case in a case involving a reduction-in-force, a plaintiff’s standard is lower. The plaintiff must supply evidence tending to indicate that the employer singled the plaintiff out for impermissible reasons. Accordingly, creating a genuine issue of material fact regarding the prima facie case is not a free pass to a jury, even in a reduction-in-force case."

The employer could take some solace in the fact that the appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's hostile work enviornment claims on the grounds that the same discriminatory comments which created the circumstantial evidence of age discrimination were insufficient to interfere with his job performance.

Insomniacs may read the full decision at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/6th/052437p.pdf.