Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani Detroit Partner Matt Wise and Senior Counsel Solomon Luwoye obtained summary judgment in favor of the firm’s employer client in a highly contested federal age discrimination case in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan.
The plaintiff alleged that the employer wrongfully terminated his employment from his IT-based role with an accounting firm based upon his age and filed federal litigation asserting age discrimination relative to the decision. After repeatedly discussing his possible retirement with his supervisor for about two years, the plaintiff claimed that she began to treat him less favorably and criticized him with “obvious negativity” in an attempt to force him to retire. He also contended that the employer hired two individuals in his department who were younger than him and who he alleged were hired to replace him, both before and after his employment ended.
However, after months of discovery, testimony and evidence provided by the employer’s witnesses demonstrated that the plaintiff’s claims were unfounded and that no reasonable jury could find that his age factored into the termination decision. The employer turned to using an alternative vendor for the plaintiff’s IT-focused job duties after a cybersecurity incident left the employer uncertain and concerned for its internal IT security. Accordingly, the court found that the plaintiff was not replaced and that the employer had exercised its business judgment in obtaining a third-party vendor for its IT security needs. On that basis, the court granted GRSM’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the plaintiff’s claims. The court also found that the employer’s rationale for ending the plaintiff’s employment was supported by the facts and was not based on his age. Summary judgment was therefore warranted on that basis as well.
The case and its outcome underscore the importance of well-documented business and employment decisions and highlight the defenses available to employers in these types of lawsuits. The decision also illustrates that the court’s role is not to substitute its judgment for that of the employer when an employment decision is supported by a legitimate, nondiscriminatory business reason. Consistent documentation, well-supported rationale, and established business practices can support sound results for employers.