Is Preferential Treatment Of Younger Workers Evidence Of An Age-Based Discriminatory Discharge?
For more than twenty years, our age discrimination lawyers in Marion County, Florida have fought for the rights of age discrimination victims. Through their decades of experience handling age discrimination cases, our age discrimination attorneys in Ocala, Florida know that many employers give preferential treatment to younger employees. For example, younger employees are given preferential treatment with respect to compensation, work schedules, training, performance evaluations, and promotion. In most cases, an employer’s preferential treatment of younger employees is rooted in discriminatory age-based stereotypes about the productivity and competence of older employees. As the U.S. Supreme Court in Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604 (1993) explained, “it is the very essence of age discrimination for an older employee to be fired because the employer believes that productivity and competence decline with age.”
In the context of an age-based discriminatory discharge case, one issue that often arises is whether the employer’s preferential treatment of younger employees constitutes evidence that the older worker was fired because of his or her age. In this article, our age discrimination lawyers in Marion County, Florida explain how the decision in Dabbasi v. Motiva Enterprises, LLC, 2024 WL 3422912 (5th Cir. July 16, 2024) shows that an employer’s preferential treatment of younger employees can be used to prove that an older worker was fired because of his or her age.
Age Discrimination Lawsuit
In that case, a man named Dabbasi brought an age discrimination claim against his former employer, Motiva Enterprises, LLC (“Motiva”), pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”). Dabbasi alleges that Motiva terminated his employment because of his age in violation of the ADEA.
Dabbasi began his employment with Motiva in 2014 when he was 48 years old. He worked as a Gasoline Coordinator in the Economics and Scheduling Department (“E & S”). In 2015, Dabbasi was placed on a Performance Improvement Plan (“PIP”) because he allegedly was “aggressive” and “intimidating.” The PIP, however, was discontinued. Dabbasi later won a “President’s Award” on three occasions, including in 2015 and 2016.
In October 2018, Dabbasi was assigned a new supervisor, Burnham. Burnham began inquiring about the performance of E & S employees. Burnham allegedly received negative feedback about Dabbasi, such as individuals purportedly having a “more difficult time working” with him and reporting that he “does not always communicate important information.”
Desire For “Early-Career Employees”
One month later, Motiva initiated assessments of its personnel. The company decided to fill coordinator positions with “early-career, high potential employees.” Burnham later clarified during litigation that the term “early career” did not refer to age and provided examples of individuals over the age of 40 who were considered “early-career” employees. Around December 2018, Burnham and the E & S Department Manager allegedly told Dabbasi they wanted to “rotate younger people in E & S.”
After less than two months as Dabbasi’s direct supervisor, Burnham prepared Dabbasi’s performance review and rated him a three out of five. Burnham also decided to take a more “hands-on-approach with Dabbasi to help” him improve his work performance.
In February 2019, Burnham changed Dabbasi’s title to “Heavy Oil Coordinator.” Burnham also held “one-on-one meetings with Dabbasi” to help him transition his Gasoline Coordinator duties to an employee who was 33 years old and newly assigned to Dabbasi’s previous role.
At Dabbasi’s 2019 mid-year review, Burnham decided to put Dabbasi on another PIP because Burnham’s one-on-one meetings were unsuccessful, and Burnham considered Dabbasi’s performance deficient. On July 18, 2019, Burnham and human resources representatives met with Dabbasi. They informed him that the purpose of the meeting was to place him on a PIP. Upon hearing this information, Dabbasi was shocked because Burnham had purportedly told him that everything was “hunky-dory.” Dabbasi stepped out of the room because he felt he was going to faint. He then returned to the room and insisted they reconvene another time. He left the room, took his blood pressure, then drove to the doctor’s office. Dabbasi described this incident as “cardiac trauma.” Motive then provided Dabbasi with leave under the Family Medical Leave Act. Dabbasi returned to work on August 12, 2019.
On August 14, 2019, Burnham and human resources representatives met with Dabbasi a second time about the PIP. According to Motiva, Dabbasi “became very loud, used a demeaning tone of voice, and was very animated in his facial expressions and hand movements” during the meeting. Nevertheless, Dabbasi signed the PIP. On August 15, 2019, the E & S Department Manager informed Dabbasi “that his employment was terminated because of his record of unsatisfactory performance, poor attitude (including during the PIP meeting), and refusal to commit to improve his performance.”
Evidence Of Discriminatory Discharge
The trial court dismissed Dabbasi’s age discrimination. On appeal, the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s dismissal and reinstated Dabbasi’s age discrimination claim. Unlike the reversed trial court, the Fifth Circuit found that Motiva’s alleged preferential treatment of younger employees was sufficient evidence “to allow a finding that age discrimination was the cause of his termination in violation of the ADEA.”
In support of its conclusion, the Fifth Circuit explained that the statement to Dabbasi about “rotating younger employees,” when “combined with Motiva’s decision to fill coordinator positions with “early career” employees, undermines the veracity of Motiva’s explanations” for Dabbasi’s termination. Although Motiva had a “non-discriminatory explanation of what ‘early-career’ meant, but when joined with a right only given to ‘younger people’ to be rotated among jobs, that non-discriminatory reason may be taken by a fact finder as not credible. The Fifth Circuit also pointed out that “Motiva gave Dabbasi multiple President’s Awards for his performance and told him everything was ‘hunky-dory,’ yet placed him on multiple PIPs.”
Marion County Age Discrimination Lawyers
Based in Ocala, Florida and representing workers throughout Florida, our age discrimination lawyers in Marion County, Florida have litigated age discrimination cases in Florida courts for more than two decades. If you have been discriminated against because of your age or have questions about your protection from age discrimination under employment discrimination law, please contact our office for a free consultation with our age discrimination lawyers in Marion County, Florida. Our employee rights law firm takes age discrimination cases on a contingency fee basis. This means that there are no attorney’s fees incurred unless there is a recovery and our attorney’s fees come solely from the monetary award that you recover.