AGE DISCRIMINATION SUIT FOR FAILURE TO HIRE IS DISMISSED WHERE THERE ARE EMPLOYMENT RESTRICTIONS WITH PRIOR EMPLOYER
Defendant was entitled to summary judgment in plaintiff’s age discrimination claim because plaintiff failed to show that defendant’s legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for not hiring him was pretextual where employment restrictions in his contact with his previous employer prevented defendant from hiring him at the time the position was open.
Plaintiff physician had worked for defendant but resigned to join another organization. Defendant later bought a hospital for which other organization provided services and decided to hire physicians rather than subcontract the work. Defendant recruited and interviewed candidates in the fall of 2012. Plaintiff did not apply until he contacted defendant in January 2013. However, plaintiff was unable to work for defendant at the time due to restrictions in his employment contract with other organization. In March 2013, organization told plaintiff he would be terminated as of July 2013, and the employment restriction waived. Plaintiff again contacted defendant about employment but defendant had already filled the open positions. Defendant did offer to interview him if there were any future openings. Plaintiff sued defendant under the ADEA and the PHRA alleging age discrimination but later withdrew the PHRA claim. Defendant moved for summary judgment on the ADEA claim.
Defendant conceded that plaintiff made a prima facie showing of age discrimination but argued that the timing of his application was a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for not hiring him. Defendant had already decided to hire the other doctors before plaintiff applied. Plaintiff’s sole argument was that he applied for the position in January 2013, meeting for coffee with the section chief of the department. However, his sworn charge of discrimination to the EEOC stated he applied for the position in March 2013. Additionally, defendant could not have hired him in March 2013, due to the restrictions in his employment contract. The undisputed evidence showed that defendant had moved forward with the hiring process of the other candidates before organization waived the employment restriction. Plaintiff failed to show that defendant’s legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for not hiring him was pretextual.
Reference: Digest of Recent Opinions, Pennsylvania Law Weekly, 41 PLW 347, Tuesday, April 10, 2018, Putnam v. Temple University Health Sys., PICS Case No. 18-0428 (E.D. Pa. March 26, 2018)
Kindly visit our Employment Law or Business & Commercial Litigation websites or contact one of our Employment Law Attorneys, Philadelphia or Business Litigation Attorneys, Philadelphia at 215-977-8200 for more information on this topic.