AGE DISCRIMINATION LAWSUIT DISMISSED DUE TO NON-DISCRIMINATIONATORY ECONOMIC REASONS FOR TERMINATION
A 55 year old employee who lost her job when the employer eliminated her position did not state a claim for age discrimination because the employer articulated non-discriminatory economic reasons for taking the actions it did.
Plaintiff worked for a hospital which was acquired by defendant. As part of the transition, plaintiff was hired as an employee by defendant. In May 2014, plaintiff began working as a reimbursement supervisor in defendant’s Allentown office.
Due to the costs involved in the hospital acquisition, defendant began eliminating a number of positions. Ultimately, defendant eliminated eight positions, including plaintiff’s reimbursement supervisor position. Defendant effectively terminated plaintiff on February 10, 2015. Plaintiff was 55 years old at the time.
Plaintiff filed this action for age discrimination in employment. Although plaintiff was a member of a protected class because she was over 40 years old, the court found she failed to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination.
Another employee, Ms. Barnes, who worked in a reimbursement supervisor role at another of defendant’s offices, continued working for defendant after plaintiff’s job was eliminated. Barnes was 29 years old and had been working for defendant since November of 2013. Plaintiff argued a reasonable inference of age discrimination was present because Barnes was retained while plaintiff was terminated.
Defendant claimed the decision to eliminate positions, including plaintiff’s job, was based on budgetary constraints. Defendant explained that Barnes had more job-relative seniority than plaintiff, supervised more employees than plaintiff, made less money than plaintiff for the same function, and had a more advanced degree than plaintiff. The billing department at the Allentown office was being eliminated, because the re-structuring moved all the billing functions to defendant’s main office. Additionally, the computer system plaintiff was using for billing was being phased out, and Barnes was more familiar with the new billing system.
The court found defendant satisfied its burden of producing a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its actions. Plaintiff failed to demonstrate defendant’s explanations were a pretext for discriminatory conduct. Defendant produced substantial evidence which demonstrated that it did not hire anyone to replace plaintiff after her position was eliminated. The court found that defendant provided sufficient evidence to indicate plaintiff’s position was eliminated because she was doing a billing system that was coming to an end, because the billing department was being centralized. Defendant retained only one employee as a liaison with defendant’s building company, and that was an individual who was 63 years old.
A subjective belief that Barnes took over plaintiff’s job because she was younger was not sufficient to cast doubt on defendant’s economic non-discriminatory reasons for its actions, and was not adequate to create an inference of discrimination. The court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss.
Reference: Norbeath v. Lutheran Home Care & Hospice, Inc. PICS Case No. 17-0993, (C.P. Lehigh, June 16, 2017), Digest of Recent Opinions, Pennsylvania Law Weekly, 40 PLW 632, July 11, 2017.
Kindly visit our Employment Law or Business and Commercial Litigation websites or contact one of our Employment Law Attorneys, Philadelphia at 215-977-8200 for more information on this topic.