In August of 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit heard a case involving an electric power board employee who claimed he was fired due to his age and retaliated against and worked in a hostile work environment. (See Love v. Electric Power Board of Chattanooga, EPB, 2010 WL 3278230 (C.A.6 (Tenn))). In Love the district court granted summary judgment to the defendant dismissing the case against the age discrimination plaintiff. Plaintiff appealed and this court sustained the lower court’s ruling. (A Louisville age discrimination lawyer could help explain this to you.)
In Love, in 2006, Mr. Love was an engineering technician for Defendants. Mr. Love claimed that one of his supervisors scared some of the other employees and threatened them with suspension and termination. There was an issue as to taking vacation over a long holiday and Plaintiff had to change his flight plans because of a mandatory work assignment and when he changed his plans, he hit “reply all” to everyone at work stating that he demanded that the Defendant reimburse him for changing his planned vacation. This cause Plaintiff to have a meeting with his supervisors who informed him that the “reply all” was wrong and that any future incident like this would result in a suspension or termination.
Plaintiff sued alleging age discrimination, but the Court noted that he did not show any proof that he was terminated and replaced by a younger worker. Also, as to the hostile work environment, on that issue as well, Plaintiff did not cite any specific instances of harassment or being subject to a hostile work environment, thus the Court dismissed that count as well. To establish a prima facie case for age discrimination Plaintiff must demonstrate that among other elements that he was replaced by a significantly younger person (cites omitted), or that he was treated differently from similarly situated employees outside the protected class. A person is not replaced when another employee is assigned to perform the plaintiff’s duties in addition to other duties, or when the work is redistributed among existing employees already performing related work.
As to this age discrimination case, Plaintiff never isolated nor identified the specific employment practices that were allegedly responsible for any observed statistical disparities. And as to the hostile work environment, Plaintiff never presented evidence that was severe or pervasive or serious enough to raise to the appropriate level. Finally, as to the retaliation claim, Plaintiff filed to create a genuine issue of material fact that the defendant retaliated against him for a protected activity.
If you have been the subject of a Louisville age discrimination matter, please call and speak to a Louisville age discrimination lawyer at the Law Offices of Andrew S. Alitowski at 888-ASK-ANDREW (275-2637) or contact us online. We are available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
If you are injured…Ask Andrew!!!