loader
Page is loading...
generic_insight_detail

This Should Go Without Saying: Replacing an Older Worker with Two Younger Workers is Not Consistent with a Reduction in Force Defense


A recent case from a Chicago federal court is a good reminder that just because you can make a particular argument in defense of a lawsuit doesn’t mean that you should. In Summers v. Electro-Motive Diesel, Inc., Case No 13C1312 (N.D. Ill. May 19, 2015), an employee who had worked for her employer for 40 years was fired, along with a number of other employees. The employee sued for age discrimination. As a reminder, employees must meet the high standard that “but for” their age, they would not have been fired. In its motion for summary judgment, the company insisted the employee had been dismissed as part of a reduction in force (RIF). The only problem was that the company had hired a younger employee (who was not RIF’d) into the same job just three months before the supposed reduction, and the employer also hired another younger employee into the same job just six months after the supposed reduction. Faced with those undisputed material facts, the court still might have ruled for the company if only the company had told the employee that she was being released as part of the RIF. Instead, the employee’s supervisor told her that her “skill set” was not one the company wanted to keep. Therefore, the court rejected the company’s summary judgment motion, giving the green light to the employee to take her case to trial. In the end, it is possible that the company will convince a jury that the employee’s separation had nothing to do with age. And, in the end, sometimes a “kitchen sink” approach is the right way to defend a lawsuit. Sometimes it is not. Summers makes clear in any event that employers must have all of their ducks lined up in a row when it comes to RIFs and terminations, and that consulting with legal counsel throughout the process is advisable.


LEAVE YOUR COMMENT

RELATED ARTICLES

In a Culture of Inclusiveness, Don’t Overlook Age

June 1, 2018 | Employment Discrimination, Currents - Employment Law

More on Medical Marijuana – Will Ohio Protect Employers’ Zero-Tolerance Policies?

May 1, 2018 | Employee Health Issues, Currents - Employment Law

Goals for the New Year: Prevent and Better Defend Employment Claims

January 8, 2018 | Employment Discrimination, Employment Lessons, Currents - Employment Law

Teacher’s ADA, Age Discrimination Claim Given New Life by Sixth Circuit

September 22, 2017 | EEOC, Employment Discrimination, Currents - Employment Law

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act Turns 50

June 8, 2017 | EEOC, Employment Discrimination, Currents - Employment Law

Subscribe

Do you want to receive more valuable insights directly in your inbox? Visit our subscription center and let us know what you're interested in learning more about.

View Subscription Center
Trending Connect
We use cookies on this site to enhance your user experience. By clicking any link on this page you are giving your consent for us to use cookies.