Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Labor & Employment Law Blogs -> Ross' Employment Law Blog
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Labor & Employment Law
: Ross' Employment Law Blog7th - Employee unable to show age discrimination during RIF
Martino v. MCI Communications (7th Cir 07/28/2009)
Martino sued his former employer claiming he was selected for termination during a reduction in force because he was nearing his 56th birthday. The trial court granted summary judgment for the employer; the 7th Circuit affirmed.
Originally hired by MCI at age 54, Martino was discharged as part of a reduction in force that followed MCI's merger with Verizon. Martino did not argue that there was evidence of age discrimination as to the ultimate decisionmaker or as to the manager who submitted his name as a RIF candidate. His claim was that his immediate supervisor harbored age animus. The 7th Circuit analyzed the case three ways.
(1) Martino claimed he had direct evidence of bias because his supervisor had referred to him as "oldtimer." Using the "cat's paw" theory, the court found that Martino's supervisor did not have "singular influence" over the decisionmaker, and that the decisionmaker (plus an intermediate recommender) conducted an independent and bias-free analysis.
(2) Using the indirect method of proof, the court found that Martino failed to establish two elements. (a) He did not establish that he was meeting the employer's expectations in that he was not a team player, and he had an "obsolete skill set" that would be of declining value as the employer shifted its focus to a different type of service. (b) He could not establish that the employer treated younger workers better. Although the employer retained some employees who were younger than 40, Martino uniquely had lost the confidence of the core sales team and stood out as poorly equipped for the employer's new focus.
(3) Martino could not show that, but for his age, he would not have been terminated, as is required under Gross v. FBL Financial (US Supreme Court 2009). At best he could do no more than show that his age possibly solidified the employer's decision.
Full post as published by Ross' Employment Law Blog on July 29, 2009 (boomark / email).
Employee Lawsuits (An Introduction and Topic Overview)
How employers can cope with the siege of employee lawsuits
Employee Lawsuits: Negligent Hiring and Retention
Employers must check references, criminal records, other background material.
The Civil Rights Act of 1871
Law bans discrimination enacted under color of state law
Discrimination
Federal laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or disability
Immigration Related Employment Discrimination & Unfair Labor Practices
What to do about employers who discriminate because of national origin
Employment
Employee rights including labor law, harassment, safety, unpaid overtime, discrimination and union disputes.
Employee Discrimination
Vanguard Group Inc. agrees to $500,000 racial bias settlement.
Apprehension Agent
State of Minnesota pays employee whistleblower and discrimination settlement.
Lipitor
Review of Studies Show No Significant Benefit in Women
Tarceva
Safety Data Show Association with Liver Failure and Death
Drive Through Discrimination
Jack-in-the Box pays undisclosed racial discrimination settlement to two customers.

New Proposed Legislation Poised to Fight Workplace Gender Discrimination
7thCir: Employee could not show that employer knew she was pregnant
COURT: Pregnancy Discrimination Act Protects Employee Who Had Abortion
Racial Bias an Affront to Discrimination Law
Jury Awards Ex-Kelly Employee $6.5 Million for Religious Discrimination
Wal-Mart Accused of Workplace Discrimination
Firefighters Sue New Haven Over Tossing of Test Results








