Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
ABC Corporation - Research Against Employee Claim

ABC Corporation - Research Against Employee Claim

Ratings: (0)|Views: 4|Likes:
Published by James Hargrave

More info:

Published by: James Hargrave on Dec 09, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





February 23, 2012
ABC Corporation
James Hargrave – Legal Counsel
Re: Claim #3 – David, Age DiscriminationWhen examining the events of this claim, David, an employee who hasworked for ABC Corporation for fifteen years has passed over for promotionby a younger employee who has only worked for the company for two years.David has always had excellent job evaluations and believes that this jobpromotion was denied to him because of age bias. On the other hand, theperson who was promoted in his case has only been with ABC Corporation fortwo years and is at the age of thirty five. In particular, the statement madeby David’s supervisor that he was too old for the position and neededsomeone younger who could fill the position for an extended amount of time,shows intent by the hiring supervision that there is the possibility that theDavid was not promoted because of Age Discrimination. David is nowthreating to file suit against ABC Corporation Inc. as he feels that thispromotion was unlawful. The claim made by David is that ABC Corporation has unfairlypromoted a younger employee and he was passed over because of his age.With his claim that this was a case of age discrimination he must first meetthe requirements to be in the protected class. In this case the Missouristatute the Missouri Human Right Act (MHRA) § 213.010 states that there arecertain requirements that must be met in order to be included the protectiveclass of age. In this statute it outlines the protective age to be between the
ages of 40 but less than 70. David is at the age of 60 and does fall into theprotected class of age discrimination. The MHRA goes on in section 213.055to forbid discrimination against the protective of age. Furthermore, thisstatute is back up at the federal level under the Age Discrimination inEmployment Act (ADEA) of 1967. In SEC. 623 of the ADEA it states that it isillegal for company, “to limit, segregate, or classify his employees in any waywhich would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employmentopportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee,because of such individual’s age”. Thus, David is considered by the court topart of a protective class and would legally able to bring about a charge of age discrimination against ABC Corporation Inc. First, though he has to file atimely claim with the Missouri Commission on Human Rights and receive aNotice of Right letter to sue ABC Corporation.If this claim was continue to trial, David could produce evidence thatsuggest he was not promoted because of age bias and meet the burden of aPrima Facie case of Age Discrimination David case relies on severalimportance factors. First, In order to prove age bias is why he did not get thepromotion he will bring in the alleged statement made by his supervisor thathe was too old for the job and that they wanted someone who fill the positionfor a longer period of time than what his age will let him. However, there areoften two sides to the story and even if the supervisor denies the accusedstatements David will assert additional evidence of discrimination that ayounger individual was hire who had only been with the company for a periodof two years in his place. Further, he will assert that his fifteen years of 
service with excellent evaluations did not provide the company with a reasonto not promote him based upon his qualifications or job performance. Inanalyzing a similar case of Stanley v. JerDen Foods, Inc., which jurisdiction fellin Missouri State Court, a comparable issue arose where the plaintiff claimedhis supervisor stated at the time of demotion, that he was too old for the joband should look at retirement. While, the supervisor denied this statementthe Trial Court found reason to believe the Plaintiff, Stanley, as there wasample evidence backing up his statement. First, they hired a youngeremployee to replace him then they demoted him, and then terminated himwhen he refused to retire (Stanley v. JerDen Foods, Inc.). This would suggestthat David’s claim of his alleged supervisor statements would be accepted bythe trial court as it is also supported by additional evidence, which includespromoting a younger employee not based on performance. In my opinion,based on legal assessment of David’s claim it is likely that he will be able tomake a Prima Facie Case of Age Discrimination and will meet the initialburden of proof. The first defense to this case if the claim does go to trial isthat the Plaintiff did not meet the initial burden of proof. This can be shown if the hiring was based on job performance and not age. However, the problemwith this is that the Plaintiff has been employed for fifteen years and hasalways had high job evaluations while the employee who was promoted hasonly been with ABC Corporation for two years. Thus, ABC Corporation withoutproviding additional evidence to the court would not be successful indefending itself against this claim. The evidence presented in this casestrongly suggests a trial court will result in a punitive judgment against ABC

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->