Opinion ID: 2207595
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Substantial Evidence of Age Discrimination.

Text: The ultimate issue in this case is whether Landals has shown that age was a determining factor in the employer's decision to discharge him or lay him off. We view the evidence in the light most favorable to Landals and give him the benefit of all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the evidence. Winter v. Honeggers' & Co., 215 N.W.2d 316, 321 (Iowa 1974). Viewing the evidence in this light, Landals presented substantial evidence he was qualified for the position he held. He had been employed by Rolfes since 1958. After working in the shipping and receiving department for approximately two years, he was promoted to a supervisory position. In 1982, the employer acquired a line of products marketed under the name of Bazooka. Landals, who had been supervisor at the main warehouse in Boone, Iowa, was transferred in early 1983 to the Bazooka production and shipping work area. The Boone plant manager, Bill Coen, and other employees testified Landals was an extremely competent and dedicated employee. On July 15, 1983, Landals' employment was terminated. He was not given any reasons for being laid off. Most supervisory employees subject to layoff were offered an opportunity to take a non-supervisory position; Landals was not. He was not recalled after being laid off. Although Landals' position was eliminated, his responsibilities were assumed by younger employees. Jeff Russell (age twenty-five), who was hired in January of 1983, assumed Landals' shipping duties. David Cain (age thirty-six), who had been with the company for approximately one year, assumed Landals' other duties. Taken together, these circumstances raise an inference of age discrimination. The employer claimed Landals was laid off or discharged because of legitimate economic reasons. It is clear the employer suffered severe economic problems starting in the fall of 1982 and resulting in a significant business loss in 1983. The decision in July of 1983 to lay off approximately fifty percent of the company's employees was necessary. However, the jury rationally could conclude Landals had been targeted for discharge by the company president, James Banton, approximately one month before the plant-wide layoff. Under the reduction in force, each plant manager had been directed to reduce personnel by fifty percent. Landals' plant manager, Bill Coen, intended to lay off employees on the basis of least seniority. Landals, because of his seniority, would not have been laid off under Coen's plan. Banton, however, specifically ordered Coenwithout any explanationto lay off Landals. Banton had previously discussed with Coen how to get rid of an employee whose wife had filed a discrimination suit against the employer. Coen was told to lay off personnel down to that employee and then later call back the others. Furthermore, a month prior to the layoff, Banton required Landals to undergo physical examination or else face discharge after he complained of chest pains. There was substantial evidence that Landals was not part of the general layoff and the claim that he was discharged because of economic conditions was a pretext. The jury rationally could draw an inference of age discrimination from Landals' proof that the reasons given were false. Under the instruction given, the jury had sufficient evidence to reach the conclusion that the plaintiff had established his right to recover damages.