Age Discrimination at work

Summarized Sixth Circuit Court Cases Gantt v. Wilson Sporting Goods Co. (6th Cir. (Tenn.) May 12, 1998) The Plaintiff, Gantt, was an at-will employee of Wilson Sporting Goods when she suffered an injury at work which required surgery. She told her supervisor that she would be off work for six months to a year. During her absence, she received disability benefits through worker’s compensation. The Defendant’s policy was that after one year a disabled employee not returning to work would be fired. After Gantt failed to obtain a doctor’s release to return to work within one year, the Defendant fired her., She was 58 at the time of her termination. Two weeks after her termination, Gantt obtained her release, with certain physical restrictions. The Plaintiff did not appeal her termination or seek reemployment. Rather, she filed suit in district court alleging, among other things, that the Defendant’s leave of absence policy violated the ADEA because it had a disparate impact on older employees. The Plaintiff appealed from the district court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of the Defendant. The Sixth Circuit noted that the Plaintiff’s complaint alleged that the Defendant’s leave of absence policy violated the ADEA because older employees are more likely to require a leave of absence greater than one year. The Court of Appeals stated that, in light of the Supreme Court’s decision inHazen Paper Co. v. Biggens, 507 U.S. 604 (1993), there is now considerable doubt as to whether a claim of age discrimination may exist under a disparate-impact theory. Furthermore, the Court of Appeals stated that, even if a disparate-impact claim was allowed, the Plaintiff would have to support her claim by offering statistical evidence of a kind and degree sufficient to show that the practice in question had caused the termination of employees due to their membership in a protected group. The court held that, given her failure to present any evidence to support her adverse impact theory, judgment was properly granted in favor of the Defendant on this claim. The Plaintiff also asserted a theory of age discrimination based on disparate treatment. Gantt stated that summary judgment was improper because she was 58 at the time of her termination, and the Company had no other reason to dismiss her other than the leave of absence she took. The Court rejected this claim, holding that a claim of disparate treatment under the ADEA requires proof of a discriminatory motive. The court held the Plaintiff had demonstrated no direct evidence that would tend to show that the drafting or execution of the leave policy was actually motivated by an intent to discriminate against older employees. Neither did the Plaintiff offer the evidence needed to make out a prima facie circumstantial case of discrimination in that she did not show that a substantially younger person replaced her or was treated more favorably than her. Finally, Gantt argued that the reason that she was fired was a pretext for age discrimination. Because she had not established a prima facie case of age discrimination, the Court of Appeals found that, under the McDonnell Douglas test, there was no need to address the question of pretext. Having rejected all three of the Plaintiff’s theories of age discrimination, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court. What is your verdict? Source: http://www.agerights.com/cases/sixthcircuitcourt/gantt.html