In March of 2013, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky decided a case involving age discrimination and a motion for summary judgment. (See Seckman v. Talbots, Inc., 2013 WL 979460 (E.D. KY 2013)). The lower court had entered an order granting the motion for summary judgment with regard to this Kentucky age discrimination case, and this appellate court after hearing argument, sustained the lower court’s ruling. As you will see the Kentucky age discrimination lawyer for the plaintiff had a very difficult case to prove.
The lower court held that the plaintiff had not produced any direct evidence of intentional age discrimination. Id. Also, that plaintiff did not show that age had any factor with regard to her performance evaluations. Id. Finally, the lower court did find that plaintiff made a prima facie case for age discrimination with regard to her termination but that the defendant did proffer a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason fro supporting her termination (such as unsatisfactory performance and unprofessionalism as described in two warning letters) that plaintiff in her response to this could not demonstrate that there was a genuine dispute of material fact that the articulated reasons are pretextual.
The lower court did ask for briefs on these age discrimination issues. This court saw that the brief submitted on behalf of the plaintiff just reiterated her original arguments and did not discuss the issue of pretext. Also, plaintiff submits two new affidavits from individuals who were employed by the defendant and suffered adverse employment actions. Id. The affidavits are from people that also “feel” they were fired because of their age. They are unsupported statements insufficient to defeat a summary judgment motion.
Also missing from plaintiff’s brief is any record or evidence that reflects an ageist corporate state of mind. Id. All plaintiff’s Kentucky age discrimination attorney was able to show the court were isolated and vague statements made by non-decision makers who did not establish corporate policy. (cites omitted). Plaintiff’s Kentucky age discrimination attorney was not able to point to a single remark from any senior official and was not able to show any proof of a discriminatory atmosphere by the defendant. Id.
Accordingly, the court upheld the lower court’s ruling stating that the burden is on the plaintiff to demonstrate that a company-wide age bias permeates each individual termination such as plaintiff’s. Plaintiff failed to do so.
If you have been the subject of a Kentucky age discrimination case, please call and speak to a Kentucky age discrimination lawyer at the Law Offices of Andrew Alitowski, P.A. at 888-ASK-ANDREW (275-2637) or contact us. We are available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
If you are injured…Ask Andrew!!!