Source: https://employingalabama.com/tag/adea/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 01:22:30+00:00

Document:
Asking an employee about his retirement plans could be evidence of age discrimination.
Sometimes, business planning runs afoul of the law. For example, it is perfectly reasonable for an employer to want to make plans regarding the future of its work force. So, it might seem reasonable to ask an older employee when he or she plans to retire. Yet, one Alabama employer is facing potential liability for age discrimination, in part because a supervisor asked an older employee if he had “plans to retire.” See Henry v. Vencore Srvcs and Sols., Inc., No. 5:16-cv-01814-AKK, 2018 WL 1456636 (N.D. Ala. Mar. 23, 2018).
Keith Henry retired from a career in the aerospace engineering profession at age 57 in 1992. But, after the 2008 financial crisis, he went back to work for Vencore in 2010 at age 74. In early 2014, Vencore transferred Henry to work as a stress analysis engineer on a contract related to Army CH-47 helicopters. The supervisor for the CH-47 project, Cliff Meyers, soon asked Henry whether he had “plans to retire.” Henry received positive evaluations while working on the CH-47 project, but Vencore terminated his employment two-and-a-half years later, when he was age 79.
United States District Court Judge Abdul Kallon found sufficient evidence to require a jury trial on the issue of age discrimination. Judge Kallon relied upon the following facts: (1) Meyers, the primary decision maker, asked Henry about his retirement plans; (2) Henry was the only team member laid off, even though he had as much or more experience than the rest of the team; (3) he was substantially older than the rest of the team; and (4) although Vencore laid off a younger individual several months later for economic reasons, it subsequently rehired that employee for the same position Henry held.
Judge Kallon was also not persuaded by Vencore’s “finite element analysis” defense. Myers admitted that stress analysis engineers like Henry did not need to perform finite element analysis; a job posting for the position did not mention finite element analysis; and Henry’s positive evaluations never mentioned the need to perform finite element analysis.
Anything you say to an employee can, and will, be used against you in a court of law. Asking about an employee’s retirement plans, by itself, is not enough to impose liability for age discrimination. But, such questions can be one important piece of evidence in building a larger case.
There is no “just kidding” defense in age discrimination law suits.
If one of your executives writes “Fire All the Old People,” you can expect difficulty in defending a claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. (“ADEA”) Moreover, the odds are very slim that you can win your law suit by claiming that your executive was “just kidding.” Those are the hard lessons that an Alabama employer learned in Wheat v. Rogers & Willard, Inc., No. 16-0282-WS-B, 2017 WL 4278347 (S.D. Ala. Sep. 26, 2017).
Judge Steele’s ruling means that a jury will decide whether Mike Rogers was biased against older people, and whether Ralph Wheat’s termination violated the ADEA. The Wheat case simply reinforces an important point that I’ve written about before: Anything you say can and will be used against you. The Wheat case might have turned out differently if Mr. Scott never made those notes. But, once he put his thoughts on paper, he provided the terminated employee with enough ammunition to send the case to trial.
The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is required to review many claims for discrimination, including claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. In the course of investigating discrimination claims, the EEOC frequently asks employers to produce documents related to the claim. If the employer refuses to produce documents, the EEOC can issue an administrative subpoena and ask federal courts for assistance in enforcing the subpoena.
A Wendy’s restaurant franchisee in Tennessee recently won a victory for employers in resisting a far-reaching document request. EEOC v. Southeast Food Svcs. Co, No. 3:16:MC-46-TAV-HGB, 2017 WL 1155040 (E.D. Tenn. Mar 27, 2017). In that case, the franchisee offered a promotion to an employee, but required the employee to sign a release of all potential claims in order to receive the promotion. Even though she possessed no claims, the employee refused to sign the release. As a result, the franchisee withdrew the promotion offer. Thereafter, the employee claimed that withdrawal of the promotion was discriminatory. The franchisee admitted the reasons for withdrawing the promotion, but denied any discrimination.
While investigating the employee’s claim, the EEOC submitted a document request and a subpoena seeking the identity and contact information of all: (1) current and former employees since December 4, 2012; (2) current and former employees who signed a release since December 4, 2012; and, (3) current and former employees promoted since December 4, 2012. When the franchisee refused to provide that information, the EEOC filed an application in federal court for enforcement of the subpoena.
The EEOC’s subpoena authority is broad. It can obtain any information that is : (1) related to unlawful employment practices; and, (2) relevant to the charge under investigation. 42 U.S.C. § 200e-8(a). Most disputes with the EEOC focus on the relevancy requirement. In the Wendy’s case, the Court found that the EEOC did not meet its burden of demonstrating relevance. While the request for information might be relevant to other potential claims, it was not relevant to this case, where it was undisputed that the promotion was denied for failure to sign the release.
The Tennessee court relied heavily upon the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in EEOC v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, 771 F.3d 757 (11th Cir. 2014). In that case, the Eleventh Circuit noted that the term “relevant” has been generously construed in the EEOC’s favor, but that it should not be so broadly construed as to render the relevancy requirement ” a nullity.” Id. at 760. The Eleventh Circuit recognized that, sometimes, broad-reaching requests might be necessary, “where statistical data is needed to determine whether an employer’s facially neutral explanation for the adverse decision is pretext for discrimination.” Id. at 761. But, like the Wendy’s court, the Eleventh Circuit found that expansion of an investigation for discovery of potential, other claims was not a “relevant” reason.
Employers should carefully consider whether to resist a request for documents from the EEOC. In many cases, the EEOC requests legitimate, “relevant” information related to a charge of discrimination, and employers should comply with information requests in those cases. But, in some cases, the EEOC is clearly attempting to expand the scope of an investigation beyond the parameters of a particular case. The Wendy’s case and the Royal Caribbean case provide employers with good arguments for contesting those types of subpoenas.
Employees on thin ice can’t save their jobs by making insincere claims of discrimination.
People don’t like to get fired from their jobs. Thanks to the wonders of the internet, many employees also know that several employment laws (like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) prohibit retaliation for making complaints of discrimination. As a result, employees who know that their jobs are in trouble will frequently make last-minute claims of discrimination in the hope that their employer will not fire them — for fear of a retaliation law suit.
This tactic has become so commonplace that the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has developed a line of cases which protect employers from such retaliation law suits. Those cases focus on the concept of causation. As part of his/her case, an employee claiming retaliation must show that termination was caused by the discrimination complaint. In most cases, close timing between the complaint and termination is sufficient to establish causation. But, there are exceptions to every rule, and the Eleventh Circuit has created an exception to the general rule on causation. Close timing “between the protected activity and the adverse action alone generally cannot show causation when the employer has contemplated the adverse action before the protected activity takes place.” Tucker v. Florida Dept. of Transport., No. 16-10420, 2017 WL 443632 at *3 (11th Cir. Feb. 2, 2017).
In short, if an employer is contemplating termination before an employee claims discrimination, then the employee must show more than close timing if he/she wants to win a retaliation claim. The Eleventh Circuit provides the following rationale for that rule: “Title VII’s anti-retaliation provisions do not allow employees who are already on thin ice to insulate themselves against termination or discipline by preemptively making a [ ] complaint.” Id.
As a practical matter, I strongly encourage any employer “contemplating” termination to have documentation in support of termination prior to making the decision. Additionally, employers should also proceed cautiously any time an employee complains about discrimination. Sometimes, even last-minute discrimination complaints have merit, and employers should ensure that no discrimination occurs in the workplace.
Dale Earnhardt, Jr.’s car dealership won a recent discrimination case.
In a sweeping victory for NASCAR fans, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed dismissal of a discrimination law suit against Dale Earnhardt, Jr. Chevrolet. Wilson v. Dale Ernhardt, Jr. Chevrolet, No. 15-15352, 2016 WL 6211818 (11th Cir. Oct. 25, 2016). (It appears that the parties or the Court incorrectly spelled Dale, Jr’s name “Ernhardt”).
Glenda Wilson claimed that Earnhardt Chevrolet refused to promote her to a guest service manager position because she was black and older than the three women hired for the position. Yet, Ms. Wilson’s discrimination claims were undermined by her own actions. After Ms. Wilson filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC, the general manager of the car dealership twice asked if she would like the position. On the second occasion, Ms. Wilson said that she was not interested in the position.
Additionally, Ms. Wilson never applied for the guest service manager position. She argued that it would be futile to apply because an operations manager told her that she would suffer a reduction in wages if she accepted the position. But, she never asked other service managers what they made, so that she could compare salaries. Moreover, the general manager testified that he actually told Ms. Wilson she would not suffer a reduction in pay.
Based upon all of the those facts, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed a decision by the trial court to dismiss Ms. Wilson’s claims. Wilson provides a useful lesson for employers faced with discrimination claims. Many times, the best way to combat a discrimination claim is to offer the employee what they want when you learn about the claim. If the employee rejects that offer, then their claim for damages is severely reduced. By offering Ms. Wilson the position she desired, the dealership also created valuable evidence that helped negate the discrimination claim.
Sometimes, fate smiles upon us. Thus, in my never-ceasing efforts to provide entertaining, yet informative, updates on Alabama employment law, I was pleased to see the reported decision of Goodykoontz v. Diamond’s Gentleman’s Club, No. 15-0553-WS-B, 2016 WL 2743530 (May 10, 2016). Goodykoontz discusses the perils of age discrimination in the gentleman’s entertainment industry.
Diamond’s Gentleman’s Club filed a motion to dismiss Ms. Goodykoontz’s complaint, but that motion was denied. The club argued that it did not employ the sufficient number of employees to be subject to liability under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and that Ms. Goodykoontz was an independent contractor instead of an employee. Nevertheless, the federal judge reviewing the motion found sufficient allegations in the complaint to allow the action to proceed.
Goodykoontz is still in the early stages of litigation. If the club can demonstrate that it does not employ 20 employees, or if it can prove that Ms. Goodykoontz was an independent contractor, it will probably win the case at summary judgment. Nevertheless, if the club fails on those issues, the statements by the general manager are probably direct evidence of age discrimination that will allow the case to proceed to trial.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 200
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.