Worker Alleges Classic Employer Age Discrimination: You’ve Had 34 Years & That Is Enough

Older workers, our age discrimination lawyers in Sumter County, Florida know, continue to face significant obstacles in hiring, promotion, and retaining employment. Obstacles that have persisted for decades because, as the court in Graefenhain v. Pabst Brewing Co., 827 F.2d 13 (7th Cir. 1987) observed almost forty years ago, “many employers or younger business executives act as if they believe there are good business reasons for discriminating against older employees.” The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), as explained by the U.S. Supreme Court in Western Air Lines, Inc. v. Criswell, 472 U.S. 400 (1985), mandates that “employers are to evaluate older employees on their merits and not their age.” Despite the passage of the ADEA more than 50 years ago, our age discrimination attorneys in Sumer County, Florida have learned, many employers still refuse to even consider hiring or promoting highly qualified older workers.

In this article, our age discrimination lawyers in Sumter County, Florida explain how the alleged facts in Barlett v. Gates, 421 Fed. Appx. 486 (6th Cir. 2010) are illustrative of the barriers older employees still endure and must continue to surmount in the hiring and promotion context.

Age Discrimination Lawsuit

In that case, a man named Barlett brought an age discrimination case against his employer, the Defense Contract Management Agency (“DCMA”), pursuant to the ADEA. The ADEA prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of age. Barlett claims that the DCMA failed to promote him because of his age in violation of the ADEA.

In September 2005, Barlett applied for promotion at the Cincinnati breach of the DCMA. Barlett sought the position of GS-12 Contracting Officer. At the time of his application, Barlett was 58 years old and had 34 years of work experience at the DCMA. Barlett was deemed qualified at the initial screening stage, and his name and application were forwarded to the selecting official, Lehman. In October 2005, without conducting any interviews, Lehman selected another DCMA employee for the position. The employee selected, Lucas, was 39 years old at the time of her promotion and, unlike Barlett, had never earned a college degree.

DCMA contends that Lucas was the “best qualified candidate” for the position. DCMA further asserts that Barlett was an average employee who lacked sufficient background in contract negotiations and a strong writing ability. DCMA also denigrated Barlett’s educational background, noting that while he was a bachelor’s degree holder, he received just average marks, and yet to receive DCMA performance awards.

Barlett alleges that he was the target of ageist remarks by Lehman and his direct supervisor, Lewin, in the weeks leading up to the promotion decision. According to Barlett, Lewin called him into her office upon her return from an August 2005 meeting with Lehman and stated: “You have a bad reputation. You have had 34 years, and this is enough.” Lewis admitted to making a statement to this effect, but says that she was relaying Lehman’s comments, as well as Lehman’s suggestion that Barlett retire. Lewin testified: “What [Lehman] said was, ‘that’s a lot of time,’ basically, and she was wondering if you were going antiquing or traveling or something like that because that’s what you supposedly do.”

As further proof of age discrimination, Barlett cites DCMA’s record of merit-based promotions under Lehman. Barlett alleges that between 2003 and 2005, employees 55 years or older received only one DCMA promotion, despite making up 36 percent of the agency’s workforce.

Evidence Of Age Discrimination

The trial court dismissed Barlett’s age discrimination claim. On appeal, the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision and reinstated Barlett’s age discrimination claim. In reversing the trial court, the Sixth Circuit focused on the ageist comments made by Lewin and Lehman leading up to the promotion decision.

The Sixth Circuit observed that Lewin and Lehman, “the selecting official at the agency, informed [Barlett] that his 34 years on the job were ‘enough’; joked about whether he had taken up ‘antiquing or traveling or something like that’; and suggested that [Barlett] should retire—a topic that [Barlett] had neither broached nor privately considered.” The court of appeals determined that “because these statements were made by DCMA decisionmakers just weeks before the promotion decision, and because the ostensible motivation of the comments was to hasten Barlett’s departure from the agency, these remarks provide strong probative evidence of pretext.” In other words, the appellate court explained, the statements by the decisionmakers were evidence that Barlett’s age was the real reason that he was not selected for promotion. Consequently, the Sixth Circuit concluded that it was for a jury to decide whether Barlett was denied promotion because of his age in violation of the ADEA and sent the case back to the trial court for a jury trial.

Sumter County, FL Discrimination Lawyers

Based in Ocala, Florida and representing workers throughout Florida, our age discrimination attorneys in Sumter County, Florida have fought for the rights of older workers for more than twenty years. If you have experienced age discrimination in an employment decision or have questions about your protection from age discrimination, please contact our office for a free consultation with our age discrimination lawyers in Sumter 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.