Employer going to trial in age discrimination case.
We had a blizzard last Friday (in North Carolina, 2 inches is a blizzard), and we still have ice and snow on the ground a week later.

Anyway, I've had enough of winter now and am ready for 2025 spring training to start (less than a month away for my Detroit Tigers!).

I got way off track. I'm sorry. Here is our real topic for the day. An employer got sued for age discrimination after it fired its DEI Director.
Never a good idea to discriminate against your DEI Director, of all people. (Allegedly.)
The employer tried to get the case dismissed on summary judgment, but a federal judge in Tennessee (Trump appointee) denied the motion, meaning that the case will go to a jury.
According to the court, the employer had not three, but seven, strikes against it. That means the employer struck out 2 and 1/3 times (I guess there were a couple of foul balls).
Play-by-Play
The Plaintiff was hired at age 52 to be the DEI Director for a university in Tennessee (not that big orange one in Knoxville – a different one). According to her supervisors, for the first five years of her employment, she did a good job.
Then she got some new supervisors . . . when she was about 58. The new bosses said that the Plaintiff’s diversity programming was ho-hum, that she didn’t spend enough time interacting with students, that she complained a lot, and that she kept her camera turned off during Zoom conferences.
(I did not realize that last was ground for termination. Uh-oh.)
Anyway, the Plaintiff was terminated in 2021 for poor performance and poor attitude. She wasn’t replaced for about nine months, but when they did hire a replacement, the replacement was a 24-year-old with (arguably) no relevant experience.
Seven strikes, and yer out!
So, what were the seven employer strikes that got this case to a jury? If you’re in Human Resources or an employment lawyer, the answers will not surprise you!, but they might be good to share with your supervisors and managers and clients:

STRIKE ONE: No documentation. Even though the Plaintiff was supposedly a lousy employee, there was no documented discipline or counseling about any of her alleged problems. The only exception was a writeup that the supervisors slapped together the day before the termination at the request of HR.
STRIKE TWO: Good performance evaluations. All of the Plaintiff’s performance evaluations for the whole six years of her employment were positive or neutral . . . with the exception of that document that the new supervisors slapped together at the request of HR the day before they terminated the Plaintiff.
STRIKE THREE: Nobody cared about the Zoom camera. Although the Plaintiff allegedly wasn’t doing well with Zoom conferences, one of her prior supervisors noted in her performance evaluation that she had “made a seamless transition to working from home.” (This was in 2020, during the pandemic.) Another employee testified that she’d never heard of anyone getting in trouble for having their camera turned off during a Zoom conference. (I am relieved!)
STRIKE FOUR: Relying on feedback from past bosses . . . who thought she did a good job. Even though new bosses generally have the right to impose more demanding – or different – standards on employees than the predecessor bosses did, in this case the new bosses didn’t do that. Instead, they claimed without evidence that they were relying on assessments from the old bosses . . . who had given the Plaintiff good performance reviews and had never disciplined her.
I’m still trying to wrap my head around that one.
STRIKE FIVE: No prior counseling, training, or discipline. Once the new bosses took over, even though they were unhappy with the Plaintiff’s performance, they never counselled her, provided training on the latest in DEI, or disciplined her. According to the court, the university admitted that no serious complaints about the Plaintiff were raised until after she was fired.
STRIKE SIX: Code words? One of the bosses responsible for the termination said that he wanted a DEI Director who was “more relatable to students” and who better “resonated with students.” The Plaintiff argued that these were code words for age discrimination. The court said the comments weren't the same as calling the Plaintiff a “dinosaur” or “over the hill,” so not necessarily, but coupled with all of the other suspicious circumstances of the case, maybe so.
STRIKE SEVEN: Younger, less qualified replacement. The university hired a replacement who was significantly younger and who was arguably less qualified for the position than the Plaintiff.
The court did make one finding in favor of the university. The Plaintiff showed that her department hired 19 employees after she was terminated. Of those new hires, 14 were under the age of 32. Sounds terrible, right? The Plaintiff claimed that this was Strike Eight. But, according to the court, she didn’t back up her claim with any evidence about the applicant pools, including their ages and relative qualifications. The court said that in one case where an older employee was replaced by a youngster, the older employee was no longer in the position because she had been promoted. In another case, a 24-year-old employee was replaced by a 22-year-old. Big deal.
Of course, the court was only denying a motion for summary judgment, which means that the employer will not necessarily lose the case. After hearing all of the evidence, a jury might decide that the Plaintiff deserved to be terminated. Or, at least, that her age had nothing to do with it.
I had written this baseball-themed post before learning that Bob Uecker died yesterday at the age of 90. May you rest in peace, Mr. Uecker, and thank you for the laughs.
- Partner
Robin has more than 30 years' experience counseling employers and representing them before government agencies and in employment litigation involving Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with ...
Robin Shea has 30 years' experience in employment litigation, including Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act (including the Amendments Act).
Continue Reading
Subscribe
Contributors
- William A. "Zan" Blue, Jr.
- Obasi Bryant
- Kenneth P. Carlson, Jr.
- James M. Coleman
- Cara Yates Crotty
- Lara C. de Leon
- Christopher R. Deubert
- Joyce M. Dos Santos
- Colin Finnegan
- Steven B. Katz
- Ellen C. Kearns
- F. Damon Kitchen
- David C. Kurtz
- Angelique Groza Lyons
- John E. MacDonald
- Kelly McGrath
- Alyssa K. Peters
- Sarah M. Phaff
- David P. Phippen
- William K. Principe
- Sabrina M. Punia-Ly
- Angela L. Rapko
- Rachael Rustmann
- Paul Ryan
- Piyumi M. Samaratunga
- Robin E. Shea
- Kristine Marie Sims
- David L. Smith
- Jill S. Stricklin
- Jack R. Wallace
Archives
- February 2025
- January 2025
- December 2024
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010