The Discriminatory Reduction In Force: Employer Finds Positions For Younger, But Not Older, Workers

Having represented age discrimination victims for more than two decades, our wrongful termination lawyers in Sumter County, Florida know employers believe that age discrimination claimants cannot prevail when they proffer reduction in force as the reason for termination. Recognizing that if they present just a shred of evidence showing an economic basis for the reduction in force, employers are supremely confident that employer-friendly judges will readily rule that no age discrimination occurred because the age discrimination claimant and other employees were terminated due to a reduction in force implemented for economic reasons. Because the age discrimination claimant along with other employees were terminated as part of the reduction in force, employer friendly-courts declare they will not second-guess the employer’s business decision to achieve a legitimate goal of reducing the workforce for economic reasons. Consequently, employers routinely use a reduction in force as one of their go-to pretextual reasons for termination when seeking to mask a discriminatory motive.

However, as the court in Maresco v. Evans Chemetics, Div. of W.R. Grace & Co., 964 F.2d 106 (2d Cir. 1992) explained, employees who claim unlawful age discrimination in the termination of employment can still prevail even when terminated as a part of a corporate reorganization or reduction in force because “even during a legitimate reorganization or workforce reduction, an employer may not dismiss employees for unlawful discriminatory reasons. In this article, our wrongful termination lawyers in Sumter County, Florida explain how the alleged facts in Cronin v. Aetna Life Ins. Company, 46 F.3d 196 (2d Cir. 1995) illustrate how older employees can establish a discriminatory reduction in force.

Age Discrimination Lawsuit

In that case, a man named Cronin brought an age discrimination claim against his former employer, Aetna Life Insurance Company (“Aetna”), pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”). The ADEA prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of age. Cronin alleges that he was fired because of his age in violation of the ADEA.

Until early 1990, Cronin had been employed by Aetna for some 33 years in various managerial positions. He was consistently given good performance ratings and was awarded a merit bonus each time he was eligible. In 1989, Cronin, then 56, worked in Aetna’s Personal Financial Security Division (“PFSD”), where he was an Administrator of Strategic Automation Planning for the Northeast Region. In December 1989, Aetna announced a reorganization of PFSD that was to eliminate 71 jobs, including Cronin’s. Aetna represented that it would attempt to find new positions for employees displaced by the reorganization.

After the reorganization was announced, Cronin took steps to ensure that he would be considered for any position for which he was qualified, speaking to his immediate supervisor, as well as to PFSD’s president, and informing them that he was willing to relocate or event to accept a lower position in order to remain with Aetna. Despite his efforts and his employment history, Cronin was “not interviewed or even contacted by anyone concerning a possible position.” Cronin later discovered that his name had not even been surfaced for positions for which he believed he was plainly qualified. Because he was not reassigned to another position, Cronin’s employment was terminated in 1990. Aetna claims that Cronin was considered for reassignment to other positions, but was not reassigned based on his performance and abilities compared to other candidates.

During the litigation, Aetna was required to disclose statistics regarding how older employees had fared as a group in the reorganization. The statistics revealed that 71 jobs had been eliminated; that 27 of the 71 persons whose jobs were eliminated were placed in other Aetna positions; and that 16 of the 27 were under the age of 40.

Evidence Of Age Discrimination

The trial court dismissed Cronin’s age discrimination. In dismissing Cronin’s case, the trial court reasoned that even if Aetna’s “business judgement was faulty” in selecting younger employees judged to be more qualified than Cronin for reassignment to other positions, such “business judgment” constituted “a legitimate basis for the employment decision” because “it is not the function of [courts] to second-guess business decisions or to question a corporation’s means to achieve a legitimate goal.” On appeal, the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision and reinstated Cronin’s age discrimination claim.

Unlike the reversed trial court, the Second Circuit was persuaded by Cronin’s argument that “Aetna preferred to retain younger employees” and thus refused to consider Cronin for reassignment “for any of the positions for which he was best qualified.” The appellate court found support for Cronin’s argument based on evidence that Aetna “did not surface” Cronin’s name for the positions for which he was well qualified, and that most of the employees reassigned to positions for which Cronin was well qualified for “had received lower performance ratings than Cronin,” “averaged many years less experience than Cronin,” and “were an average of 23 years younger than [Cronin].” Thus, the Second Circuit concluded that Cronin had produced sufficient evidence for a jury to infer that Aetna did not want its managers to even consider Cronin for positions for which he was better qualified that the younger persons Aetna recommended, and that Cronin’s age was a factor in Aetna’s failure to recommend him for consideration.

Sumter County Wrongful Discharge Lawyers

Based in Ocala, Florida and representing workers throughout Florida, our wrongful termination attorneys in Sumter County, Florida have fought for the rights of wrongful termination victims for more than twenty years. If you have been wrongfully terminated or have questions about your rights as a wrongful termination victim, please contact our office for a free consultation with our wrongful termination lawyers in Citrus County, Florida. Our employee rights law firm takes wrongful termination 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.