Employer Prevails On Federal Age Discrimination Claims
In employment law case of Mercantanti v. WCI Operations, LLC, PICS Case No. 15-0551 (E.D. Pa. March 31, 2015), a 54-year-old woman failed to produce evidence that would lead a reasonable fact-finder to either disbelieve defendant’s legitimate reason for discharging her as banquet manager or to believe that an invidious discriminatory reason was more likely than not but-for cause of defendant’s action. Summary judgment was granted to the defendant employer.The Federal Age Discrimination Claims.
Plaintiff Lisa Mercantanti brought claims under the ADEA and PHRA against her former employer, defendant WCI Operations, owner of The Washington Crossing Inn. Plaintiff alleged that defendant unlawfully terminated her employment as banquet manager because of her age. Plaintiff was 54.
The defendant purchased the Inn in May 2009 and hired plaintiff to continue in her role as banquet manager. Approximately six months later, defendant terminated plaintiff, eliminated the banquet manager position and created the position of banquet coordinator, involving the same duties, but with less pay and no benefits. Defendant’s offer on Nov. 24, 2009 for another to assume the banquet coordinator role was rejected. Plaintiff’s 22-year-old assistant, Ashley Kohler, performed plaintiff’s duties until March 2, 2010 when another person was hired as banquet coordinator.
Defendant moved for summary judgment, conceding for purposes of the motion that plaintiff presented a prima facie case of age discrimination. Defendant proffered as a non-discriminatory reason for discharging plaintiff—her repeated conflicts with new management, including directives that she not bring her dog to work, record certain information about customer inquiries and a proposed new dress code.
The district court granted the motion and entered judgment for defendant, finding plaintiff did not raise any genuine dispute of material fact regarding pretext. Plaintiff failed to produce any evidence to lead a reasonable fact-finder to either disbelieve defendant’s articulated, legitimate reason for discharging plaintiff or to believe that an invidious discriminatory reason was more likely than not the but-for cause of defendant’s action.
Plaintiff presented no evidence to contradict the core facts supporting defendant’s proffered nondiscriminatory reason for terminating her. She admitted to clashing with defendant over the directives regarding her dog, customer inquiry records and proposed dress code. Plaintiff argued that a fact-finder could reasonably disbelieve defendant’s proffered reason for her discharge because defendant reported to state unemployment authorities her discharge was due to “restructuring.”
The court rejected the argument because the record demonstrated that defendant maintained, from the time plaintiff was fired, that the reason for her discharge was the conflicts with management. Coding her termination as “restructuring” was part of a separation package offered to assist plaintiff in applying for unemployment compensation. This did not undermine the core facts regarding defendant’s proffered reason for discharging plaintiff.
Plaintiff argued that pretext could be inferred from the discrepancy in the defendant’s position statement to the EEOC that Kohler did not take over the banquet manager position to its current concession that Kohler “temporarily” assumed plaintiff’s duties. This also did not undermine the core facts or lead a reasonable fact finder to disbelieve defendant’s justification for firing plaintiff.
The record did not support plaintiff’s argument that defendant fired plaintiff with the intent to promote Kohler, 32 years younger than plaintiff, to plaintiff’s position. Plaintiff claimed the timing of Cammy Castiello’s hiring, two months after plaintiff filed her charge with the EEOC, suggested pretext. Kohler testified she was never promised or formally promoted to plaintiff’s job, but told she was assuming plaintiff’s responsibilities until a replacement was found. She was never given a raise and told she was too young for the additional responsibility.
Plaintiff’s argument was further undermined by the rejected offer of her position to another five days after her termination. Kohler’s temporarily assuming the responsibilities did not create a reasonable inference that defendant’s “real reason” for firing plaintiff wash her age.
Reference: Digest of Recent Opinions, Pennsylvania Law Weekly, 38 PLW 354 (April 14, 2015)
Filed Under: Age Discrimination; ADEA; PHRA; Employment Law
Please visit our Employment Law, Business Litigation and Employment Law Blogs websites for more information on this topic.