Our last post discussed the growing frequency with which age
discrimination cases are being filed and the basic frameworks under which an
age discrimination case are analyzed. As
explained, age discrimination cases are frequently difficult cases for an
employee to win, in part because of exacting proof standards that the federal
courts have imposed through an extensive body of case law.
One such case from the Western District of North Carolina
demonstrates the proof difficulties well.
Darnell v. Tyson Foods, Inc. was an age discrimination suit brought by a
longtime employee of the Tyson Foods processing plant in Monroe, North
Carolina. Plaintiff James Darnell had
worked at this plant since 1969. He was 63 at the time of the events at issue.
For years, Mr. Darnell had worked as a maintenance
supervisor during the plant’s 6am to 5pm shift.
As part of costs reduction measures, the plant eliminated a third shift
maintenance supervisor position. This,
in turn, lead to an increased rate of equipment failures and decreased plant
productivity.
In 2010, the company arranged for Dennis Joy, a Maintenance
Specialist, to conduct a plant inspection and to develop a performance
improvement plan. Mr. Joy concluded, in
part, that a third shift maintenance supervisor was needed and that Mr. Darnell
was the best candidate for the position.
Coincidentally, Mr. Darnell went out for prostate surgery on April 14,
2010, and returned eight days later.
Upon Mr. Darnell’s return, Mr. Joy, the Plant Manager, and the Human
Resources Manager met with Mr. Darnell and asked him to accept the third shift
position. Mr. Darnell refused, saying,
“There ain’t no way in hell you are going to kill me the last couple of years
that I plan on working here.” Mr.
Darnell later requested two weeks of vacation to consider his options.
On May 10, 2012, Mr. Darnell again declined the move. He was then given two alternative options of
working a hybrid shift from 3:00am to 1:00pm or of continuing his existing
schedule at a lower hourly rate of pay.
Mr. Darnell refused these options as well. The parties discussed the same three options
two days later and, again, Mr. Darnell refused each. Mr. Darnell, concluding that a stalemate
existed, left the plant and never returned.
He was eventually replaced by a 57 year-old replacement.
Mr. Darnell filed an EEOC Charge of Discrimination and,
later, a lawsuit alleging age discrimination.
As our last post explained, Mr. Darnell, in order to make a
prima facie showing of discrimination, had to demonstrate that: (1) he is a
member of a protected class; (2) he suffered adverse employment action; (3) he
was performing his job duties at a level that met his employer's legitimate
expectations at the time of the adverse employment action; and (4) the position
remained open or he was replaced by a substantially younger individual. The parties did not dispute the Plaintiff’s
satisfaction of the first and third elements.
The Defendant did contest the remaining elements and moved for a summary
judgment on the basis that these elements could not be established as a matter
of law.
In most discrimination cases, there is usually no dispute
about whether adverse employment action occurred. Usually, it is the occurrence of adverse
employment action that triggers the case in the first place. The Court in this case, however, demonstrated
how even this element requires exacting proof.
In addressing the question of whether the reassignment to a
night shift position constituted an adverse employment action, the Court
explained that “An adverse employment action is a discriminatory act which adversely
affects the terms, conditions or benefits of the plaintiff's employment.” In this case, the Defendant emphasized that
the reassignment would not result in a decrease in pay or benefits, not did it
constitute a demotion or reduction in job responsibilities. The Plaintiff, however, cited two principle
objections to the shift change: (1) that
he has difficulty sleeping during the day and (2) that the Defendant ignored
his seniority in assigning him the overnight shift.
The Court, while recognizing that working an overnight shift
can constitute a legitimate burden to a person accustomed to working normal
hours did not find the shift change to constitute a significant change in
employment status, which is necessary to establish the adverse employment
action element. In further support of
its conclusion, the Court cited to Fourth Circuit precedent for the proposition
that “a person's subjective evaluation of an employer's decision is not
sufficient, standing alone, to constitute an adverse action.”
In the end, the Court determined that the Plaintiff failed
to offer evidence to support a finding that the move was adverse on any
objective level. Consequently, the Court
agreed that the Plaintiff failed to establish the second required element of
the prima facie case of age discrimination.
The ruling on this initial issue seems harsh. Requiring a 63 year old man, who has worked
day shift hours for some forty consecutive years, to suddenly convert to third
shift hours probably would strike the average, reasonable person as a
significant, adverse change in employment status. Indeed, such a dramatic change in work
conditions arguably turns a person’s life upside down in several respects. It requires adaptation and shifts in
lifestyle that a 63 year old person recovering from serious health conditions
is arguably not situated to make. Nevertheless,
the Court determined, without the assistance of a jury, that such a marked
change in employment status was not an objectively adverse employment action.
Because this one element of the prima facie case was, in the
opinion of the Court, unsatisfied, the entire case failed as a matter of law. Note, however, that the Court’s opinion
provided additional analysis, which further demonstrates the proof difficulties
posed by age discrimination cases. We
will discuss these additional aspects of the ruling in our next post. Please contact us if you have questions about the ruling in the meantime.
No comments:
Post a Comment