EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMONATION BASED ON AGE AND RETALIATION BASED ON THE COMPLAINT ABOUT MISTREATMENT AND AGE DISCRIMANTION

In the federal employment litigation case of Broad v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. (Chesler, U.S.D.J.) No. 25-7-0741, the plaintiff alleged that Home Depot terminated his employment because of his age and in retaliation for complaining about mistreatment and age discrimination. Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. The court found the plaintiff made a prima facie showing of age discrimination because, among other things, he had been employed by Home Depot for 22 years, over the course of which he had received very positive performance reviews; he was replaced by a person 12 year his junior; and a few months before his termination his supervisor told him “old-timers [who] are… getting older and making a lot of money” who failed to create something that only they only understood “would be gone”. It also found that defendants marshaled more than enough evidence of a nondiscriminatory reason for termination: that despite being a successful performer, plaintiff’s being confrontational and aggressive and his failing to demonstrate respect and appreciation for others eventually outweighed the value he brought to the team.

However, the court found that plaintiff had offered enough evidence to raise a factual dispute because he had received several formal performance citations shortly before his termination, but his record had previously been clean for over two decades. Accordingly, the court denied the motion for summary judgment on the age discrimination claim under NJLAD. The court granted the summary judgment on the retaliation claim under New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, finding that there was no indication that plaintiff’s articulated concerns regarding age discrimination influenced the decision makers involved in terminating him.

Summary judgment was also granted on the retaliation claim under the Conscientious Employee Protection Act because CEPA did not protect plaintiffs complaints regarding the breached promise to maintain his level of compensation. The court denied summary judgment on plaintiff’s claims against individual supervisors, finding that a supervisor could face aiding and abetting liability even if he was the principal enactor of the employer’s wrongful conduct.

Reference Case & Analysis, New Jersey Law Journal, 222 N.J.L.J. 2279 (Monday, July 18, 2016)

Filed Under: Employment Law; Age Discrimination, Retaliation

Please visit our Employment Law website for more information on this topic.