Kentucky Employment Law Blog

Hostile Work Environment Based on Age Is Actionable, Fifth Circuit Rules

Is a hostile work environment based on an employee's age a viable claim?  The Fifth Circuit ruled recently that a claim for hostile work environment based on age may be advanced under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) in Dediol v. Best Chevrolet, No. 10-30767 (5th Cir., September 12, 2011). The Fifth Circuit followed the Sixth Circuit's decision in Crawford v. Medina General Hosp., 96 F.3d 830 (6th Cir. 1996).

Robert L. Abell
www.RobertAbellLaw.com 

Retaliation Verdict For Employee Fired Less Than Three Weeks After Complaining of Age Discrimination Upheld

An employee fired less than three weeks after expressing concerns about age discrimination sued for retaliation and the jury verdict in his favor was upheld by the Sixth Circuit in Spengler v. Worthington Cylinders, No 08-3110 (July 27, 2010). The case and the court's decision offer typical examples of the type of unfounded explanations often offered up by employers to try and hide their wrongful conduct.

Jon Spengler was 53 when he began working for Worthington Cylinders as a seasonal employee. He performed well and, as a result, was on track to be hired as a permanent, full-time employee. After he was turned down for permanent employment in the company's cylinder division, his supervisor, Huggins, said he "would probably have trouble keeping up with younger guys" in that department. Huggins also said he would recommend Spengler for permanent employment in the company's steel division. However, Spengler expressed to a Hoffman, the plant manager, his concerns about age discrimination arising from Huggins's comment about his ability to keep up with the younger guys. And from there things took a turn for the worse. Huggins began pointedly ignoring Spengler and Spengler was fired less than three weeks later. He filed suit and a jury ruled that his firing was in retaliation for his having complained of age discrimination.

The Sixth Circuit ruled that the jury reasonably found a causative link between Spengler's complaint of age discrimination and his firing based on the following:

• temporal proximity: less than 3 weeks passed between Spengler expressing his concerns of age discrimination and his firing
• contrary to the company's assertion that all seasonal employees were terminated after 12 months if not higher on a permanent, full-time basis, there was evidence that this policy was selectively enforced in numerous seasonal employees work longer than 12 months
• the attitude and demeanor of Spengler's supervisor, Huggins, changed markedly after Spengler complained of age discrimination
• Huggins made no attempt to address or dispel Spengler's concerns about age discrimination
• Huggins did not follow through and recommend Spengler for the steel division.

Robert L. Abell
www.RobertAbellLaw.com

 

 

Age Discrimination Verdict: $12 Million In Compensatory and Punitive Damages

A discharged managing partner of a New York Life office in Cleveland filed suit claiming age discrimination after he was fired. He went to trial, won and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the verdict, although it reduced the puntive damages award from $10 million to $6 million. Morgan v. New York Life, No. 07-4186 (March 12, 2009).

The court found the strongest evidence of age discrimination to be New York Life's willingness to deviate from its purported standard procedures on behalf of younger employees but refusal to do so for older employees including the plaintiff, Tommy G. Morgan. This evidence included (1) a younger managing partner, Savoie, of another office repeatedly fell below New York Life's claimed performance criteria, received training that was not available to older employees and was not fied; (2) a 39 year old, Cox, was supposedly ineligible for promotion, according to New York Life standards, but was promoted; (3) a 36 year old, Scott, was also promoted despite a worse job performance than Morgan, according to New York Life's criteria; (4) a substantially younger managing partner, Slattery, had a peformance rating of 1.25, which was below New York Life's standards, but received no disciplinary action, while managing partners over 50 with much higher performance ratings were disciplined.  The court concluded that more than ample evidence sustained the jury's finding of age discrimination:

Savoie, Cox, Scott, Bravada and Slattery were all younger than Morgan when New York Life departed from its normal practices. All of these individuals received lesser sanctions and in some case cases even favorable treatment despite performance issues. The record supports the district court’s finding that New York Life appeared to be much more willing to consider extenuating circumstances in some instances (such as Scott’s pregnancy) than it was in evaluating Morgan’s performance (such as when Northern Ohio employee John Tijanich embezzled millions of dollars). The district court also contrasted the treatment that the younger managing partners received with that of older managing partners such as Helms and Bartlett, the latter of whom Willson helped to reach a retirement decision, and Torrell, who was not a “manager of the future” because “time has passed Jim by.

Robert L. Abell
www.RobertAbellLaw.com

Retaliation & Age Discrimination Complaints Increase Most, EEOC Reports

Retaliation and age discrimination complaints led an overall increase in complaints filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Houston Chronicle reports, "Job Bias Lawsuits On The Increase."  While there was an overall increase of 9% filed with the EEOC, retaliation complaints were up 18% and age discrimination complaints 15% in fiscal year 2007. 

Robert L. Abell
www.RobertAbellLaw.com

Age Discrimination Verdict Upheld by Kentucky Supreme Court

    A jury verdict finding age discrimination and awarding damages was upheld by the Kentucky Supreme Court in Childers Oil Company, Inc. v. Adkins (No. 2007-SC-000032 and available at the Kentucky Court of Justice website here). 
    Adkins was hired as a cashier and later moved to a kitchen position when food operations were started.  The kitchen was later shut down and Adkins fired, although she requested that she be returned to her cashier's job.  She, who was age 47, presented evidence that a much younger cashier had been hired only 11 days before she was fired, that management had commented that it wanted "young, pretty, and skinny" girls working as cashiers so as to attract truckdriver business.  There was also evidence that the store posted a "Now Hiring" sign in its window after Adkins was fired.   Adkins was awarded by the jury $50,000 for emotional distress damages and  $11,922 for lost wages. 

Robert L. Abell
www.robertabelllaw.com