Page 21 - BusinessWest October 3, 2022

game. However, the conversation should always be about succession planning and/or transi- tioning of job duties. And, of course, sugges- tions about needing “younger” workers must be avoided.
A recent decision from the Massachusetts Appeals Court demonstrates the risks associated with subtle remarks about an aging workforce population coupled with an organizational need to make room for “junior-level talent.”
In Adams v. Schneider Electric USA, the
together, cut 24 employees, all but two of whom were over age 50.
The employee sued, claiming his employer terminated him on the basis of his age in vio- lation of Massachusetts law. The lower court dismissed the case before trial, but a divided Appeals Court reversed that decision, concluding that the employee had pointed to enough evi- dence of age discrimination to require a jury to decide the case.
for the RIF [did so] neutrally.” Among this evi- dence was an October 2015 email from a vice president in the IT department telling an HR pro- fessional that the employer needed “age diver- sity” and “young talent.”
Notably, the comments relied on by the court — including the references to “creating space” for “junior-level talent” and a potential early- retirement program — did not reflect age bias on the part of the person who actually made the decision to include the employee in the RIF. The
decision maker had completely neutral, busi- ness-based reasons for laying off the plaintiff. In fact, there was evidence in the record that suggested the decision maker and the plaintiff were long-term friends.
Even so, the court felt that there was also evidence demonstrating that, although the decision maker himself did not harbor dis- criminatory motives, he did have meetings with higher-level managers who were the sup- posed “architects” of employer’s plan to clear out older employees. Finally, the court pointed to the all-to-obvious fact that all of the employ- ees selected for the January 2017 RIF were over age 50. This fact alone suggested the decision
maker “understood the company strategy to discriminate.”
Takeaways
Interestingly, the Adams decision was the sub- ject of a strong dissenting opinion joined by two members of the five-judge Appeals Court panel. Among other things, the dissent argued that the
Aging
Continued on page 23
ERICA FLORES
JOHN GANNON
“General discussions about retirement plans are fair game. However, the conversation should always be about succession planning and/or transitioning of job duties. And, of course, suggestions about needing “younger” workers must be avoided.”
Appeals Court reversed a lower-court decision that dismissed an age-discrimination lawsuit of
a 54-year-old employee. The plaintiff in that case was an employee who worked for his employer for many years as an electrical engineer. In Janu- ary 2017, the employer laid off the employee as part of a larger reduction in force (RIF) related to cost-cutting strategies. The RIF laid off a total of eight employees, all of whom were over age 50. In fact, the employer conducted a series of RIFs over a period of just 10 months that, when combined
Evidence of Age Discrimination
The majority opinion, joined by three of the five judges who decided the case, found that the Trial Court should not have dismissed the case for multiple reasons. First, the court concluded that there was evidence of a high-level plan to replace aging employees with “early-career” tal- ent and recent college graduates, “from which
a jury could find that the RIF itself was tainted even if the person who selected the employees
BusinessWest
LAW
OCTOBER 3, 2022 21